The 23-State Solution
It’s time to bid farewell to the language of a "two-state solution." Let’s embrace a new vision – a comprehensive regional approach that resolves the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all.
There’s no idea or phrase more closely identified with J Street than the “two-state solution.”
The concept is simple. The Jewish and Palestinian peoples both have deep historical and emotional ties to the same land which each see as their homeland. For nearly a century, would-be peacemakers who have sought to resolve the long-running and bloody conflict between the two peoples have come back to one simple truth: the land has to be partitioned so each ends up with a state they can call home.
Calls for a “two-state solution” were once seen as bold and cutting edge, and its advocates as pushing the envelope. Sadly, years of failure to realize two states have turned to decades of frustration and despair. Now, mere mention of the phrase shuts ears rather than opening minds. This is true on the right and on the left, for Israelis and Palestinians – not to mention globally.
While many Israelis understand intellectually the need for two states, polls indicate that close to 90 percent believe it will never happen. In the wake of October 7, it’s hard to find any Israeli who doesn’t roll their eyes at the idea.
That’s even more true for Palestinians who for decades have heard the world’s commitment to a “two-state solution” but seen only endless occupation and nonstop settlement expansion.
We actually need to – and can – aim for something far bigger and more attractive than just two states.
I call it the 23-state solution – a comprehensive regional agreement providing Israel full acceptance by former Arab adversaries, global recognition of its borders, comprehensive security and economic relationships with neighboring states and more.
I suggest that pro-Israel, pro-peace advocates stop calling for two states and begin advocating for a full and complete end to Israel’s conflict with all 22 of its neighbors in the Arab world.
This approach applies a principle attributed to former President Dwight Eisenhower: “Whenever I run into a problem I can’t solve, I always make it bigger.” I saw that idea at work in the complex, multi-nation prisoner exchange last summer that freed journalist Evan Gershkovich.
The 23-state solution is a win-win-win. Israel fulfills its founders’ dreams of global acceptance, Palestinians gain self-determination, and the Arab world gains a partner on the security, intelligence and economic fronts.
None of it will be possible if the 23rd state isn’t Palestine, one of 22 member states of the Arab League.
Some may have initially seen the Abraham Accords as a path to normalization without addressing the Palestinian question. However, particularly in the wake of the Gaza War, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman, and other Saudi officials have made abundantly clear in recent months publicly and privately that further normalization is going nowhere without a clear commitment to a path to Palestinian statehood.
The posture of the Arab world toward Israel today could not be more dramatically different from Israel’s early decades, which were marked by wars threatening the state’s very existence.
Into the 1970s, the Arab world was united in proclaiming resounding “no’s” to the state of Israel – no to recognition, no to negotiations, no to peace. The Arab League promoted global boycotts of Israel and sought to have Zionism declared a form of racism.
The journey toward normalization of Israel’s relations with its neighbors began almost five decades ago with the first Camp David Accord between Egypt and Israel, negotiated by President Carter. The road next led to peace with Jordan in 1994.
In the 21st century, the ”no’s” of Khartoum were transformed into powerful potential “yes’s” as the Arab League unanimously adopted in 2002 a comprehensive offer to normalize relations with Israel known as the Arab Peace Initiative. The Abraham Accords in 2020 involving the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan were a next step on the road.
The magnitude of this shift cannot be overstated. Sunni Arab States have come to recognize the confluence of their national interests and Israel’s, whether on the security front facing common challenges from Iran and extremist non-state actors or the regional need for employment and growth opportunities beyond fossil fuel extraction.
What this means for Israel and its friends around the world is the most fundamental choice of its 75 plus year history: will it continue down the Netanyahu/Smotrich/Ben Gvir path of annexation and endless conflict or work hand in hand with the Arab world to build a 23-state solution including a secure, successful state of Palestine.
The second path will take significant time and require a Marshall Plan-sized investment in rebuilding Gaza, implementing iron-clad security arrangements and revitalizing the Palestinian Authority so it is ready for statehood. Further details of how such an initiative could be shaped are laid out in an issue brief on the J Street Policy Center’s website, which proposes five steps toward a comprehensive regional agreement:
(1) Reach an agreement to stop the fighting in Gaza, release hostages, and surge humanitarian aid to Gaza – and then launch a comprehensive diplomatic initiative offering American recognition of a demilitarized state of Palestine as a key incentive for Palestinian participation and full regional normalization and a security pact as a key incentive for Israeli participation.
(2) Israelis and Palestinians take parallel unilateral steps to stop the process of annexation and begin reforming the Palestinian Authority, while the US and regional actors take measures to ensure long-term security in both Gaza and the West Bank.
(3) In return for each side fulfilling unilateral commitments, the US would commit to recognize Palestine and the Arab League would affirm the offer of the 23-state solution – i.e., full normalization of relations with Israel.
(4) Negotiations would then commence on two tracks – Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution and Israel-Saudi normalization based on a new UN Security Council resolution laying out the parameters for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and confirming the path to admission for Palestine as a full member state.
(5) Finally, the US would commit to pass the legislation necessary to enable both sets of agreements and support Palestinian admission to the UN as a member state
The vision of the 23-state solution and an integrated, secure and prosperous future for an Israel at peace and fully accepted by its neighbors is bold, exciting and positive. It can appeal to the imagination of all involved and reignite interest in otherwise moribund peace efforts.
None of this will happen without the serious leadership of the United States. That’s why advocating for the US to lead the way toward the 23-state solution is an essential element of what it means to be pro-Israel today.
I agree with everything you write. One important piece is missing: true reconciliation is unlikely to happen without a Zionist apology for the Nakba. This formal apology from the WZO will have resounding psychological reverberations among Jews and Arabs alike. Progressive Zionist Movement www.pzmove.org
This is a very important re-formulation which I support. I know I have been self-critical that for 20 years or so I just kept repeating my two-state solution mantra, publicly criticized BDS while defending the right to have that view, but didn't do enough to educate myself and speak out individually other than through supporting J Streeet and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom before that.
One issue: apparently the US cannot recognize Palestine now or it triggers various legal provisions which would harm our ability to provide aid to Palestinians. But the US can do this, now: make clear to its allies that while the US cannot now formally recognize Palestine we do not oppose other nations doing so, and that while we will not support full admission to the UN of Palestine until further along in the process, we promise to do so and feel that enhanced diplomatic ties including recognition by nations such as Mexico and so forth are not seen as hostile on our part.