Why the “Two-State Solution” is No Solution

In a brilliant new essay in Mosaic magazine, Rafi DeMogge explains why the creation of a Palestinian state will only create more violence and more international diplomatic isolation for Israel.

It’s a medium-long read and deserves your careful attention, but my summary is this: historically, whenever Israel has withdrawn from territory this has resulted in more violence, not less. That territory becomes the origin of attacks on Israel, to which it then responds in self-defense, and the level of violence rises. Opinion around the world is excited against Israel by that violence far more than by the "occupation," as we have seen in the aftermath to Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attacks. Were a Palestinian state to be created in the West Bank (with or without Gaza as part of that state), Israel’s diplomatic isolation would grow—not decrease—because when it reacted to the inevitable terrorist attacks, it would be violating the sovereignty of a state and its borders. Even more condemnation would arise than exists now.

And why can we be sure such violence and terrorist attacks would in fact occur, even after some deal to create a Palestinian state? Because that truncated state would never satisfy the demands of Palestinians—and not just of terrorist groups, but of most Palestinians, judging by decades of poll results. Those demands are essentially eliminationist; they do not seek a deal whereby a peaceful Palestine divides the old Mandate territory with a Jewish state, but rather seek to eliminate the Jewish state entirely.

To the very important pragmatic arguments against creating a Palestinian state that would be revanchist and violent, threatening the security of Israel (and Jordan as well), DeMogge now adds a diplomatic argument. As he concludes,

In practice, politicians and opinionmakers who see the greatest urgency in Israel’s relinquishment of additional territory also tend to be the people who are the most critical of Israel’s war effort, and indeed their criticism of the war is much harsher and much more vocal than their criticism of Israel’s management of the Israel-Palestinian conflict during quieter times. This means, however, that in view of its self-declared allies’ and partners’ easily observable revealed preferences, Israel has no incentive to make further territorial concessions. Quite the contrary: if Israel is truly concerned about potential diplomatic isolation in the future, it must resist the idea of territorial concessions with all its might.

None of this—my summary and this one quotation—fairly presents the logic and the force of DeMogge’s argument. Read it yourself, here.