The two-state solution has long been touted as a moderate and mainstream resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It was this answer to the conflict I supported until the recent escalation of hostilities in the region revealed the solution’s implausibility and incongruity to me.

The continued violence and rocket attacks demonstrate the absence of a conciliatory relationship between Israel and Hamas. There appears no sentiment from either side to engage in diplomatic negotiations on Palestine’s statehood when the foremost issue is resolving the carnage. Furthermore, there is no apparent readiness to compromise, especially when under Bibi Netanyahu, Israel is poised to enlarge its settlements.

The absence of the United States, a state power that has traditionally backed the two-state solution as a key mediator, contributes to the resolution’s impossibility. In May 2018, the US abandoned its position as an intermediary by withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal and relocating the American consulate in Israel to Jerusalem under the Trump administration. Importantly, in 2020, the US provided $3.8 billion in military assistance to Israel, in a commitment made by the Obama administration and enhanced under Donald Trump’s Presidency. These actions reveal the impartiality of the US.

It was no surprise then that Trump’s January 2020 Peace Plan provided no support for Palestine, as it recognized most Israeli settlements in Arab territories. Predictably, a Palestinian delegation was absent from negotiations and rejected the proposal altogether, citing its blatant bias.

Under Biden, there appears to be little nuance in US approaches toward the peace process; the country has again thrown around its diplomatic weight in the United Nations Security Council. In May 2021, US officials blocked joint statements that would have expressed condemnation of Israel’s disproportionate military response that has seen approximately 200 people killed, including 58 children.

However, Egyptian diplomats have historically acted as mediators in this dispute, providing some cause for optimism. Cairo aims to consolidate the ceasefire announced on May 21, 2021, through establishing a longer-term truce and facilitating direct negotiations between each side. The outcome and longevity of this, however, remain to be seen.

Even so, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights have been expanding. Unless Israel were to unilaterally withdraw its citizens from its settlements, as it did in the Gaza Strip and North Samaria in 2005, the logistical capacity of the two-state solution will continue to become increasingly improbable. This is due to borderlines being muddled and the fact that the Israeli government would have to evict citizens from their own homes and devise new housing solutions for them.

Supplementing this, I would question the credibility of this two-state plan, as it involves the creation of a theocracy and maintenance of an ethnostate.

I believe the more moral solution to this conflict would be to end apartheid in Israel, affirm equal rights for Palestinians, and pursue reconciliation under one democratic regime. I do not wish to assert that this option will involve a clean remedy to the problems in Israel-Palestine. Of course, there would still be a significant imbalance of political power due to the Jewish community constituting the ethnic majority and possessing more wealth.

The other issue involves the opposing personal ideologies present in this argument. Many Jews and Arabs alike have a deep-seated hatred of their counterparts’ respective belief systems. On one end, Zionism advocates for the rightful return of Jews to their bygone homeland after thousands of years of exile. On the other, is the belief that a European settler-colonial endeavor is impeding Palestinians’  right to live on their native land.

While the level of animosity may be tremendous here, societal unification has taken precedence in other instances. Apartheid in South Africa ended in 1994, when political rights were given to the majority Black population. Similarly, desegregation in the United States, beginning in 1951, occurred when there was perhaps a greater level of antagonism than in Israel-Palestine, between the white and Black communities following centuries of extreme racism and slavery.

I am not hopeful, however.

More realistically, interim reforms such as the removal of military checkpoints, the dismantling of security fencing, and a commitment to improving the human rights and economic prosperity of the Palestinian people, should be adopted. This can be done through renovating refugee camps, encouraging more industrial projects, and improving infrastructure in besieged areas. That said, this will not resolve the conflict entirely, and the more likely outcome involves the hardening of Israeli resolve against Palestine and recurring explosions of violence every several years.

Evidently, the two-state solution, first espoused by the 1937 Peel Commission, then the 1947 UN Special Commission on Palestine, and the 1993 Oslo Accord, as well as countless other attempts, has proved continually futile and dubious. I contend that the international community should begin rallying behind Israel and Palestine to engage in reconciliation and rapprochement to herald the path toward a one-state solution.