Why Ilan Pappe Rejects the Two-State Solution for the Israel–Palestine Conflict
The notion that only the two-state solution offers a feasible direction for ending the Israel–Palestine conflict has prevailed for many years in international diplomacy, Western media discourse, and state-sponsored peace talks. In Ten Myths About Israel, Ilan Pappe completely disassembles this myth, arguing that rather than leading to peace, the two-state framework perpetuates and justifies Israeli settler colonialism while concealing the realities of apartheid and dispossession (Pappe, 2017, p. 133).
Pappe’s key argument is that the two-state solution, supported by Israel and Western powers, does not guarantee a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state. Rather, what is on offer consists of fractured enclaves—spatially and politically isolated Bantustans resembling those of apartheid South Africa. He explains how even the Oslo Accords, which ostensibly promoted Palestinian statehood, institutionalized a framework of partial autonomy while consolidating Israel’s dominance over the vast majority of the West Bank’s resources and territory (Pappe, 2017, pp. 135–136).
This so-called peace process, Pappe contends, was never intended to deliver real parity between Israelis and Palestinians. Instead, it has functioned as a diplomatic umbrella to deflect international criticism and to label any objection to Israel’s expansionist agenda as either anti-peace or anti-Semitic (Pappe, 2017, p. 137). He notes that political leaders and mainstream commentators continue to promote the two-state approach, despite overwhelming evidence that Israeli settlement expansion, military occupation, and the annexation of East Jerusalem have made it geographically untenable (Pappe, 2017, pp. 138–139).
One of the central historical facets of Pappe’s analysis is his analogy between modern Israeli actions and the apartheid regime’s creation of Bantustans—formally autonomous regions that, in practice, entrenched racial segregation and white supremacy. Similarly, the Palestinian Authority’s partial jurisdiction over confined cities and refugee camps obscures the fact that Israel retains final control over borders, airspace, natural resources, and security (Pappe, 2017, pp. 140–141).
Pappe argues that the persistence of this myth is not merely a sign of naïveté but serves a deliberate function: to preserve the status quo while portraying Israel as a liberal democracy committed to an endless search for peace, allegedly obstructed by Palestinian intransigence (Pappe, 2017, p. 142). He warns that clinging to this illusion delays an honest reckoning with the reality on the ground—a unified territory controlled by Israel under a regime of settler colonial rule and segregation (Pappe, 2017, p. 143).
Rejecting the language of a two-state framework, Pappe calls for a radical redefinition of the conflict—from one of partition and negotiation to one of decolonization and equal rights. He urges the abandonment of euphemisms such as “peace process” and “territorial compromise” in favor of more accurate terms like occupation, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and settler colonialism (Pappe, 2017, p. 144). He maintains that dismantling this system requires global solidarity movements—such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign—to pressure Israel into ending its oppressive regime and establishing one democratic state for all citizens, regardless of religion or ethnicity (Pappe, 2017, pp. 145–146).
Khadija Murtaza
The writer is a teacher at the MIKAZA Educational Foundation – Phil Pak School in Khairpur Mir’s, Sindh.
