The Two-State Solution:A Slice of Pizza, or a Recipe for Peace?

Op-ed on Peace & Conflict Studies

By Jana Younis

In January, I rushed to the American University of Beirut after class to attend a conference, where professors analyzed the events and escalations of October 7, 2023. In my French copybook, I wrote a few messy notes. But one expression given made me question my outlook on a policy that I thought could be achievable…The two-state solution. In my green copybook for French class, I wrote “[A] 2 state solution is akin to fighting over a slice of pizza, while someone is eating it.” 

With the 2024 U.S. election looming, every major foreign policy is under a renewed spotlight. As I discuss the U.S. elections with adults, they always support their stance on their elections by bringing up the Two-State Solution policy. The policy is one of those phrases that, like clockwork, pops up in election debates, campaign speeches, and policy pledges—a political catchphrase for what many still hope is the key to peace in the Middle East. But is it? The policy sounds straightforward: two states, side by side, with each population governing itself, ideally coexisting in peace. However, the Two-State Solution is, in reality, more like the analogy of two people fighting over a pizza slice while one person is already eating it. As American candidates pledge support for peace initiatives, we must ask ourselves: are we talking about a feasible path forward or a dream that keeps drifting further away?

This analogy is essential because it reveals something central to the issue: the continuous imbalance of power that has deteriorated the practicality of the Two-State Solution over the decades. While the international community, including many American politicians, keeps presenting the "solution" as a feasible roadmap to peace, the situation on the ground tells a different story. Land is settled, borders are blurred, and the map looks less like a puzzle and more like territory that’s already been carved out.

But let’s not pretend this is about an actual pizza slice. It’s about sovereignty, resources, identity, and justice—core elements of a conflict that are often overlooked. The Two-State Solution has become more of a slogan than a strategy, a convenient box to tick for those who want to look like they support peace without confronting the complexities that make true peace so unattainable. And as long as one party continues to "eat the slice," claiming land and resources while discussing division, the concept of two independent states living side by side drifts further from reality.

What Does "Two States" Really Mean?

In theory, the Two-State Solution is very simple. Israel and Palestine would coexist as two sovereign nations, each within its defined borders, each with its own government, and each living peacefully alongside the other.

Let’s be honest: there’s no such thing as a "clean-cut" here. This isn’t a neat slice of pizza; it’s a land where every border, every checkpoint, and infrastructure is taken into account. For Palestinians, the West Bank and Gaza are not just pieces of land; they represent the remains of their homeland. And for Israelis, retreating to the pre-1967 borders is seen as an existential risk.

So what happens when we keep going back to a solution that sounds good in theory but is practically impossible to exercise? We end up with policies that are at odds with the lives and realities of those who are supposed to benefit from them. The Two-State Solution sounds fair and balanced; however, it’s a policy built on an imbalance that has only deepened over time. One side sits at the negotiating table as an established state with international backing while the other is fragmented, vulnerable, and limited in its ability to participate in these so-called “solutions.”

Settlements: The Anchors in the Pizza

To understand why the Two-State Solution feels increasingly like wishful thinking, let’s look at the “anchors in the pizza”, the settlements. With more than 600,000 Israelis now living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the question of borders is no longer theoretical. These aren’t temporary encampments; they’re fully developed communities with schools, roads, and infrastructure that stretch across what would, in theory, be Palestinian land.

So, if the Two-State Solution proposes splitting the land, how do you draw borders around a state that has been carved up with settlements? It’s like trying to divide that pizza when one party has already claimed multiple toppings. These “facts on the ground” make it nearly impossible to create a bordering Palestinian state. Imagine negotiating a state only to discover it comes with geographic holes, checkpoints, and limitations at every turn. Are we to believe that these settlements will just disappear? Or are we looking at a "state" riddled with territories that fall under another nation’s authority?

The Global Appetite for "Two States"

But perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Two-State Solution is that it isn’t just an Israeli or Palestinian interest—it’s a global one. Internationally, the Two-State Solution has become a convenient symbol of diplomacy, a way to show backing for peace without delving too deeply into the real issues on the ground. It’s the perfect solution to support in theory, a banner to wave when condemning violence or calling for negotiations. For the U.S., the EU, and the UN, supporting two states is a way to show they care about peace in the Middle East.

But is it about peace, or is it about maintaining stability? For some, the Two-State Solution is less about achieving peace and more about preventing further escalation. It has become a diplomatic slogan, a standard line in speeches, a tool to preserve the status quo rather than to disrupt it with genuine change. As long as it remains a theoretical ideal rather than a feasible plan, the global community can support it without any real pressure to make it happen.

So where does that leave us? 

The Two-State Solution has become less a roadmap to peace and more a fantasy on the horizon—always visible, never reachable. While one side continues to "eat the slice," expanding its control and setting up anchors on the land, the other is left negotiating for a dream that feels increasingly out of reach. And as long as we cling to this idea without addressing the core issues—the imbalance of power, the reality of settlements—the solution remains a dream, not a reality.

Reimagining the Path Forward

If the Two-State Solution remains a distant dream, what other paths are there? Some argue for a One-State Solution, with equal rights for all citizens. Others suggest shared governance models and even regional alliances. Each option is complex and fraught with challenges, and yet perhaps it’s time to face the uncomfortable truth: real peace will require us to think beyond the simplistic solution of "two states."

True peace isn’t a slogan, and it’s not achieved by dividing a pizza that’s already half-eaten. Peace demands justice, equality, and the acknowledgment of each side’s humanity, and until we can address these underlying issues, we’re left chasing a solution that continues to elude us, a dream that fades with every new settlement and every broken promise.

My role is not to offer a solution to the ongoing crisis, but to open the eyes of the international community and leave them questioning the feasibility and complexities of the “two-state solution”. 

If we’re serious about real peace, we have to stop obsessing over dreams. We must be willing to rethink what peace looks like: not as a convenient expression but as a complicated and very real process because true peace is not about sharing a slice; it’s about sharing dignity, security, and, ultimately, a future.