The big problem is that while there used to be a relatively clean line aggressive (and highly illegal) Isreali settlers and those who organize them have purposefully worked to destroy any clear separation in an effort to make a two state solution impossible.
The isreali government has had many different forms and drives since founding - this is by far the worst form where displacement and genocide is openly embraced - but even under prior more tolerant government there’s always been a militant genocidal faction of the population that have indepently worked to establish illegal settlements.
The question of where to draw the line has been purposefully made as difficult as possible by people who are opposed to a line ever being drawn.
It is exactly what happened with the settlement of native american lands in the US. Settlers move into land given by treaty to the Indians, when trouble occurs the military is sent in and the Indians are inevitably ejected from their lands.
The first proposal for separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937.[3] In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a partition plan for Palestine, leading to the 1948 Palestine war.[4][5] As a result, Israel was established on the area the UN had proposed for the Jewish state, as well as almost 60% of the area proposed for the Arab state. Israel took control of West Jerusalem, which was meant to be part of an international zone. Jordan took control of East Jerusalem and what became known as the West Bank, annexing it the following year. The territory which became the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt but never annexed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, both the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip have been militarily occupied by Israel, becoming known as the Palestinian territories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
Basically from the beginning until 2014, that has been the basis of every proposal.
There was the original 1947 UN plan for the partition of Palestine, for one. You can read in that article about which groups accepted and rejected it.
Quite inconceivable at this point than any solution exists that satisfies the apparently mutually exclusive…
I) “right to return”. A large part of the Palestinian cause is the right to repossess their familys historic land inside modern Israel
Ii) Israeli security. Israel already considered the 1967 borders indefensible even more so given miliary action initiated by neighbours in 1948, 56, 63, 67 and so on.
Any two state solution is enormously fragile even if it does exist. Unimaginable that Israel wouldn’t take parts of the land saying that without it their security is untenable. Unimaginable that extremist groups within Palestine wouldn’t use it as an opportunity to build up forces and launch attacks at Israel given they’re ideologically opposed to any Jewish state, even a reduced one.
The solution “probably” is that things have to get so terrible and the rest of the world so upset at it carrying on that some sort of secular UN guarded state is created encompassing the whole region.
Either that or Israel’s going to divide and kill the Palestinians until 2 generations from now younger folk in the West, who don’t remember any of this, consider the whole region to be Israel. And the “Palestinians” if they’re heard from at all, are a stateless minority group, relegated to slums and living on the street.
There is the Saif al-Islam Gaddafi Isratin proposal:
The Gaddafi Isratin proposal intended to permanently resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through a secular, federalist, republican one-state solution, which was first articulated by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, at the Chatham House in London and later adopted by Muammar Gaddafi himself.
Its main points are:
-
Creation of a binational Jewish-Palestinian state called the “Federal Republic of the Holy Land”;
-
Partition of the state into five administrative regions, with Jerusalem as a city-state;
-
Return of all Palestinian refugees;
-
Supervision by the United Nations of free and fair elections on the first and second occasions;
-
Removal of weapons of mass destruction from the state;
-
Recognition of the state by the Arab League.
Similar to the Binational State Solution advocated by the Palestinian leadership and some others prior to the Nakba.
Partition was used to justify Setter Colonialism and Ethnic Cleansing
The Zionist position changed in 1928, when the pragmatic Palestinian leaders agreed to the principle of parity in a rare moment in which clannish and religious differences were overcome for the sake of consensus. The Palestinian leaders feared that without parity the Zionists would gain control of the political system. The unexpected Palestinian agreement threw the Zionist leaders into temporary confusion. When they recovered, they sent a refusal to the British, but at the same time offered an alternative solution: the partitioning of Palestine into two political units.
- Pg 132 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
On 31 August 1947, UNSCOP presented its recommendations to the UN General Assembly. Three of its members were allowed to put forward an alternative recommendation. The majority report advocated the partition of Palestine into two states, with an economic union. The designated Jewish state was to have most of the coastal area, western Galilee, and the Negev, and the rest was to become the Palestinian state. The minority report proposed a unitary state in Palestine based on the principle of democracy. It took considerable American Jewish lobbying and American diplomatic pressure, as well as a powerful speech by the Russian ambassador to the UN, to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly for partition. Even though hardly any Palestinian or Arab diplomat made an effort to promote the alternative scheme, it won an equal number of supporters and detractors, showing that a considerable number of member states realized that imposing partition amounted to supporting one side and opposing the other.
- Pg 181 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
This ongoing Settler Colonialism annexing the West Bank continues to make a Two State Solution less possible, it has already divided the West Bank into hundreds of isolated enclaves. This Apartheid State needs to end as a binational state for all Palestinians and Israelis.
Here are resources by Historians about a One-State Solution. In many ways, it’s already a One-State, an Apartheid State, this change would be the emancipation of Palestinians to bring forth a One-State with equal rights.
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
- Avi Shlaim
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
-
/s (putting this up front just in case)
Clearly at this point the only answer is a 0 state solution. Everyone shit in the pool so we’re shutting it down, everyone out.
