A MUN Delegate's Guide to the Israel-Palestine Two-State Solution

Do not index

Picture this: you're trying to divide a single, beloved family home between two relatives. Both have deep emotional ties to it, and both believe it's entirely theirs. That's the essence of the Israel-Palestine two-state solution. It’s the leading diplomatic framework designed to establish an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel—in other words, creating "two states for two peoples."

What Is the Two-State Solution Framework?

As an MUN delegate, you need to go beyond a simple definition. Think of the two-state solution as a complex blueprint for peace. You can't just jump into building a house; you first need to agree on the foundation. For a two-state agreement, that foundation rests on four massive pillars, and any resolution you write will have to tackle them all.

At its core, this framework is the world's best answer to a tough question: How can two distinct peoples, each with a powerful claim to the same piece of land, both achieve their national aspirations? The goal is to establish a sovereign, viable Palestinian state that can live peacefully next to a secure Israeli state.

The Four Pillars of a Final Agreement

Over decades of diplomacy, negotiations have always circled back to four critical "final status" issues. These are the make-or-break topics that must be settled for any lasting peace. If you want to make a real impact in your committee, you need to know these inside and out.

The table below breaks down these four core components. They are the absolute heart of any serious discussion on a two-state agreement.

Core Issue	Description	Common Proposal
Borders	Defining the final map for both states.	Based on the pre-1967 "Green Line," with mutually agreed-upon "land swaps" to allow Israel to keep some settlements in exchange for giving other land to Palestine.
Jerusalem	Resolving the competing claims to the city, which both sides want as their capital.	Dividing the city: West Jerusalem for Israel, East Jerusalem for Palestine, with special international oversight for the Old City's holy sites.
Refugees	Addressing the "right of return" for Palestinians who fled or were displaced during the 1948 and 1967 wars.	A symbolic and limited return to Israel, with most refugees receiving compensation and resettlement options in the new State of Palestine or other countries.
Security	Ensuring Israel's safety from threats while respecting Palestinian sovereignty.	A demilitarized Palestinian state, Israeli control over airspace for a period, and robust intelligence-sharing agreements.

Getting these four pieces to fit together is the ultimate diplomatic puzzle. Each one is deeply connected to the others, and a compromise on one issue often depends on a concession in another.

Historical Roots in the UN

The concept of dividing the land isn't new; it actually began with the United Nations. The original 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) was the first major international effort to create separate Arab and Jewish states out of what was then British Mandatory Palestine.

The plan recommended giving 56% of the land to a Jewish state and 43% to an Arab state, with the city of Jerusalem placed under international control. You can dig into the specifics of this foundational UN action on their official records website.

Here’s the map proposed by the UN Special Committee on Palestine at the time:

The plan was rejected, and the war that followed in 1948 left Israel with 78% of the territory. This outcome created the very border disputes and realities that have defined the conflict ever since.

Understanding these early UN decisions is vital, as they form the legal and historical basis for many subsequent Security Council resolutions. It’s also a great example of the UN's power in action, which sometimes includes unique abilities held by certain bodies. For instance, you might want to understand what is veto power in the UN and how it shapes these high-stakes diplomatic scenarios.

The Diplomatic Journey from Oslo to Today

If you want to understand why the two-state solution is stuck in a stalemate, you have to look back at the rollercoaster of past negotiations. For any MUN delegate, this history is your playbook—it’s full of precedents, powerful arguments, and crucial lessons on what not to do.

The modern peace process really kicked off with a burst of shocking optimism in the early 1990s. After years of public hostility, secret talks in Norway led to one of the most iconic handshakes in history on the White House lawn.

The Hope and Heartbreak of Oslo

The 1993 Oslo Accords were a game-changer. For the very first time, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) officially recognized Israel’s right to exist. In return, Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This was huge—it broke a massive psychological barrier that had blocked any real progress for decades.

These accords laid out a five-year plan for Palestinian self-government in parts of the West Bank and Gaza. The idea was to create a stepping stone toward a final, permanent peace deal. This is when the Palestinian Authority (PA) was born, tasked with handling civil administration in designated areas.

But the details were messy. The Accords carved the West Bank into three distinct zones, a division that was supposed to be temporary but has become a permanent fixture of the conflict.

Area A: The PA was given full civil and security control. This accounts for about 18% of the territory.

Area B: The PA handled civil matters, but security was a joint Israeli-Palestinian responsibility. This covers 22% of the territory.

Area C: Israel retained full civil and security control. This is the largest chunk, at 60% of the West Bank.

This fragmentation, especially the Israeli control over Area C, remains a massive roadblock to creating a viable, connected Palestinian state. You can dig deeper into how the two-state solution was shaped by these accords on Britannica.

The timeline below helps visualize some of the key historical moments that led up to these diplomatic efforts.

As you can see, events long before Oslo—like the original UN partition plan and the wars that followed—drew the maps and created the political realities that negotiators are still wrestling with today.

Later Initiatives and Continuing Stalemate

When the Oslo process finally collapsed, the situation exploded into the Second Intifada in late 2000. This was a brutal period of widespread violence that wiped out any remaining goodwill. In the aftermath, the international community kept trying to put the pieces back together.

One of the biggest attempts was the 2003 "Road Map for Peace." This plan, pushed by the "Quartet" (the U.S., EU, Russia, and the UN), was a step-by-step guide to reaching a two-state solution. But it quickly fell apart when both sides failed to follow through on their initial commitments.

Another major push came with the 2007 Annapolis Conference. Hosted by the United States, it brought Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA President Mahmoud Abbas to the table for direct talks. Olmert later claimed he made a very generous offer, but the negotiations fizzled out without a deal. These cycles of failure show just how delicate diplomacy is in this region. You can learn more about how to analyze patterns of Middle East conflict escalation in our guide.

Since Annapolis, there have been other U.S.-led efforts, but none have managed to break the deadlock. With each failed attempt, another layer of history, resentment, and distrust was added, making the next round of talks even harder than the last.

The Major Roadblocks to Peace: Why Is a Solution So Hard?

On paper, the two-state solution seems straightforward. But putting it into practice is like trying to solve a puzzle where the pieces themselves seem to change shape and resist fitting together. As a Model UN delegate, just knowing the name of the solution isn't enough. You need to master the arguments and understand why it has remained so elusive for so long. Grasping these roadblocks is your key to speaking with authority in committee.

The core issues aren't just political disagreements. They are deeply tangled up with national identity, existential security fears, and historical trauma for both Israelis and Palestinians. Progress stalls because these roadblocks represent fundamental, often zero-sum, conflicts over land, rights, and the very stories each side tells about itself. Let's break down the four main obstacles that have consistently derailed peace talks.

1. The Ever-Expanding Israeli Settlements

Imagine trying to draw a border on a map while someone is busy building new towns right where you need to draw the line. That's the challenge posed by Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem—territory Israel captured in 1967 and which the international community considers occupied.

Since the 1970s, a network of over 140 official settlements and around 100 unsanctioned outposts has grown across the West Bank. Today, they house more than 700,000 Israeli citizens. For Palestinians, these settlements are a direct, physical barrier to statehood. They slice up the territory, making it nearly impossible to create a viable, connected state. From their perspective, it’s a deliberate strategy to create "facts on the ground" that make a Palestinian state impossible.

From an Israeli standpoint, the issue is far more complicated. Many settlers feel a powerful historical and religious tie to the land, which they call by its biblical names, Judea and Samaria. The Israeli government also views the larger settlement blocs as critical for security, creating a strategic buffer. Their negotiators often argue that in any final deal, these major blocs would be annexed by Israel, with Palestine being compensated with other land in return.

2. The Competing Claims to Jerusalem

No issue is more emotionally loaded than Jerusalem. For both Israelis and Palestinians, the city is the very heart of their national and spiritual lives. The claims are absolute, and they directly conflict.

The Israeli Position: Israel considers all of Jerusalem, both West and East, to be its "eternal, undivided capital." This position is rooted in thousands of years of Jewish history and is seen as non-negotiable across most of the Israeli political landscape.

The Palestinian Position: Palestinians envision East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. It is the center of Palestinian commerce, culture, and religious life, and it is home to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam.

3. Security Demands vs. National Sovereignty

At its core, this is a clash between Israel's profound fear of existential threats and the Palestinian demand for genuine, meaningful independence.

Israel insists on maintaining ultimate security control over the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This would include the airspace and borders of a future Palestinian state. Citing past attacks and regional chaos, Israel argues that a fully sovereign Palestine could become a launchpad for hostile groups. Their primary demand is for a "demilitarized" state, which many Palestinians see as a form of sovereignty in name only.

On the other side, Palestinians argue that a state without control over its own borders, security forces, and airspace isn't a state at all—it's just an autonomous zone under foreign control. They contend that real, lasting security for everyone can only come from justice and the dignity of true self-determination, not from permanent military oversight. Mastering these nuances is essential for any delegate, and you can explore more advanced conflict resolution strategies in our dedicated guide.

4. The Explosive Question of Palestinian Refugees

Finally, there's the issue of the "right of return," which is perhaps the most politically combustible of all. This refers to the principle that Palestinian refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars, along with their millions of descendants, have a right to return to their ancestral homes, many of which are now inside Israel.

For Palestinians, this is an issue of fundamental justice and a right they believe is protected by international law. In their view, acknowledging this right is a necessary step to righting a historical wrong.

For Israel, the idea of millions of Palestinian refugees returning is a demographic red line. It's seen as a move that would effectively end its existence as a Jewish-majority state, and no mainstream Israeli leader would ever accept it. Diplomatic efforts have tried to find compromises, such as compensation, resettlement in the new Palestinian state, or a symbolic and limited return of a few individuals to Israel. But the gap between the two sides' fundamental positions remains immense.

The following table neatly summarizes the general starting positions you'll encounter on these critical issues.

Positions on Core Issues

Issue	General Israeli Position	General Palestinian Position
Settlements	Annex major settlement blocs; dismantle isolated outposts. Land swaps to compensate Palestine.	All settlements are illegal and must be dismantled. The border should be based on the 1967 lines.
Jerusalem	Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided capital of Israel.	East Jerusalem must be the capital of the State of Palestine. Holy sites need special arrangements.
Security	Israel must retain overriding security control of the entire area, including borders and airspace of a demilitarized Palestinian state.	A sovereign Palestine must control its own borders and security forces. International presence may be acceptable temporarily.
Refugees	The "right of return" is a non-starter. Solutions involve compensation and resettlement in Palestine, not Israel.	The "right of return" is an individual right based on international law that must be acknowledged. A just solution must be negotiated.

As you can see, these aren't minor details to be worked out—they are foundational disagreements. Any delegate hoping to make an impact must move beyond surface-level statements and engage with these complexities head-on.

Key Stakeholder Positions and Public Support

In any Model UN committee, remember this golden rule: you don’t represent a topic, you represent your country's specific, often messy, position on it. To make a real impact when debating the Israel-Palestine two-state solution, you need to get inside the heads of the key players. Think of this as your diplomatic briefing on who stands where and what political forces are pulling their strings.

You'll quickly find that a country's official policy often tells only half the story. The mood on the street can be entirely different, and a sharp delegate knows how to use that gap. The main actors fall into three groups: the primary parties, the major international powers, and their influential regional neighbors.

The Primary Parties

Neither the Israeli nor Palestinian leadership is a single, unified voice. In fact, deep internal fractures define their approaches to a two-state framework, which is a huge part of why unified negotiations are so difficult to get off the ground.

The Israeli Government: Officially, recent Israeli governments have voiced strong reservations, if not outright opposition, to a fully sovereign Palestinian state. The absolute top priority is national security, which translates to a demand for complete Israeli security control over all land west of the Jordan River. This stance effectively rules out a Palestinian state with its own army, independent borders, or the kind of sovereignty most nations take for granted. This isn't just a negotiating tactic; it's driven by intense domestic politics and a core belief that a truly sovereign Palestine could pose an existential threat.

The Palestinian Authority (PA): The PA, which is led by the Fatah party and governs parts of the West Bank, is the world’s go-to for Palestinian diplomacy. Its entire platform is built on achieving a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. For the PA, the path to statehood runs through international law, UN recognition, and multilateral diplomacy.

Hamas: The story gets much more complicated with Hamas, the Islamist movement running the Gaza Strip. Its founding charter was notoriously rigid, calling for Israel's destruction. However, in recent years, some leaders have hinted at the possibility of accepting a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, but only as part of a long-term hudna (truce), stopping short of formally recognizing Israel. This ambiguity, combined with a refusal to renounce violence, makes Hamas a non-starter for Israel and Western powers, and a massive hurdle for a united Palestinian front.

International and Regional Powers

The rest of the world isn't just watching from the sidelines. Global powers have the ability to apply pressure, offer game-changing incentives, and ultimately, legitimize whatever outcome is reached.

The United States: As Israel's most powerful ally and a historic mediator, the U.S. position is absolutely critical. While Washington has traditionally championed the two-state solution, the exact approach shifts dramatically from one administration to the next. The U.S. frequently uses its veto power at the UN to block resolutions it sees as one-sided against Israel and maintains that a lasting peace can only come from direct talks between the two parties—not from an imposed international plan.

The European Union and Key Members: The EU as a bloc sees the two-state solution as the only realistic way forward. Major players like France and the United Kingdom have even begun leaning toward formally recognizing Palestinian statehood. They see this not as an endpoint, but as a move to keep the very idea of a two-state solution alive as settlement expansion continues.

Regional Actors (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia): These neighbors have a huge stake in the outcome. Egypt and Jordan already have peace treaties with Israel and are constantly involved in mediation efforts to maintain regional stability. The real wildcard is Saudi Arabia; the prospect of normalizing relations with Israel is a massive bargaining chip, one that is almost always tied to concrete, meaningful progress toward a Palestinian state.

Waning Public Support: A Deepening Divide

While diplomats in New York and Geneva debate frameworks, support for the two-state solution has cratered among both Israelis and Palestinians. After decades of failed talks, cycles of violence, and the relentless growth of settlements, both populations are deeply cynical.

A landmark 2020 joint poll found that only 43% of Palestinians and 42% of Israeli Jews still backed the idea of a two-state solution. This isn't just a dip; it's a near-total collapse of belief in the process. When researchers presented a detailed plan—one including a demilitarized Palestinian state and land swaps—support among Palestinians plummeted to below 5%, while Israeli support was only 38%. You can dive deeper into these crucial numbers by exploring public opinion data from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

This chasm between diplomatic concepts and public opinion is a powerful tool for your speeches. It lets you argue about the political realism of any proposal and stress the urgent need for confidence-building measures to simply restore a little hope. Getting a handle on these positions is your first step. Now, you can build on it by learning how to craft a powerful MUN country profile for your assigned nation.

Exploring Alternative Solutions and Future Scenarios

As hope for a traditional Israel-Palestine two-state solution fades and realities on the ground become more entrenched, a tough question is surfacing in diplomatic circles: what if it's no longer a viable path? For a top-tier MUN delegate, the ability to look beyond standard talking points and really dig into alternative frameworks is what separates the good from the great. It shows you’re thinking about the conflict’s potential futures, not just rehashing its past.

This means getting comfortable with ideas that push against decades of international consensus. These alternatives are no simple fixes—each carries its own enormous set of problems. But they are very much part of the high-level discourse you need to be prepared for.

The One-State Solution: A Double-Edged Sword

The most talked-about alternative is the "one-state solution." But be careful—this single phrase actually describes two completely different, mutually exclusive futures. As a delegate, it's absolutely crucial to know the difference.

A Democratic, Binational State: This vision is for a single, secular country stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. In this state, every inhabitant—Israeli and Palestinian alike—would be a full and equal citizen with the same rights, especially the right to vote. Proponents see this as the most just and ethical outcome, finally dismantling the structures of separation.

A Single State with Enduring Inequality: The flip side is a far darker scenario. Many fear that a one-state reality could simply formalize the current situation into a system of permanent inequality. In this outcome, Israel would control the entire territory but would not grant full citizenship or equal rights to Palestinians. Critics warn this would create a system tantamount to apartheid.

Confederation and Other Creative Frameworks

Beyond the simple one-or-two-state debate, other innovative ideas have been floated to try and break the stalemate. These models are all about finding a middle ground, often by creatively separating the ideas of statehood and citizenship.

A confederation is a leading example. This framework might involve two independent states, Israel and Palestine, but with open borders and certain shared governmental bodies to manage things like security, water, or major infrastructure. Some versions even propose bringing Jordan into a wider confederation, acknowledging the deep historical and demographic links. In such a system, citizens could potentially live in one state while holding citizenship in the other—a clever way to address the intractable issues of settlers and refugees.

Other, less common scenarios include proposals for long-term autonomy, which would give Palestinians control over their daily affairs but stop short of full, sovereign independence. While some might see this as a pragmatic step, most Palestinians reject it as an unacceptable compromise on their right to self-determination. These ideas often come up in broader regional security talks, similar to efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, which also demand creative, long-term thinking.

Ultimately, knowing these alternatives gives you a powerful tool in committee. When you understand the nuances of the one-state model, confederation, and other future scenarios, you can propose creative clauses in your resolutions, challenge other delegates' rigid positions, and prove you have a sophisticated, forward-looking grasp of what could lie beyond the Israel-Palestine two-state solution.

Winning Your Debate: A MUN Playbook

Having a solid grasp of the facts is just the starting point. In MUN, the real game is won through strategy. This section is all about turning your deep research on the Israel-Palestine two-state solution into real-world results in your committee. Let's translate those complex policies into moves you can make in your speeches, position papers, and bloc negotiations.

The best delegates don't just represent their country; they become their country's voice from the moment they first speak. Your opening speech is your chance to set the entire tone for the conference. It’s not about reciting a list of facts—it's about telling a story that frames the debate in a way that serves your national interests.

Sample Opening Speech Excerpts

To really get a feel for this, let's look at how different countries might approach their opening statement. Pay close attention to their word choices and where they place their emphasis. It's all about priorities.

Delegate of Israel: "Esteemed delegates, let us be clear. Security is not a preference; it is our survival. While we all hope for a peaceful future, any path forward that ignores Israel's non-negotiable security needs—including full security control west of the Jordan River—is a path to failure. You simply cannot build lasting peace on a foundation that puts our citizens at risk."

Delegate of Palestine: "Honorable chairs, for generations, my people have been denied the basic right to self-determination. We are not here asking for special treatment. We are here to demand what is legally and morally ours: a sovereign state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as our capital. It's time for the international community to move past empty words and take real action to end this illegal occupation."

Delegate of the USA: "The United States has long held that a two-state solution, achieved through direct talks between the parties, is the only viable route to a just and lasting peace. We are here to help that process along, but let's be realistic—unilateral actions and resolutions from this body only create more distrust and push a genuine solution further out of reach."

Delegate of Egypt: "As a nation with a long and hard-won history of mediating this conflict, Egypt knows that regional stability is paramount. We are calling on all sides to de-escalate and get back to the table. A viable Palestinian state isn't just about justice for Palestinians; it's a vital component for the long-term security of the entire Middle East."

Structuring Your Position Paper

Think of your position paper as your game plan for the whole conference. It needs to be a short, sharp document that lays out your country's policy and what you plan to do about it. Follow this checklist to make sure you've hit all the key points.

State Your Core Position: Open with a direct, unmistakable statement on where your country stands on the two-state solution. Is it the only path? A flawed but necessary model? Or completely unworkable? Don't be vague.

Cite Key UN Resolutions: Ground your arguments in the language of international law. This is your chance to show you’ve done your homework. Reference foundational documents like UN Security Council Resolution 242 (which calls for withdrawal from occupied territories) and the more recent Resolution 2334 (which condemns settlements).

Address the Core Issues: Systematically tackle each of the four final status issues: borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and security. Dedicate a small section to each, explaining your country's specific stance.

Propose Actionable Clauses: This is where you pivot from problem to solution. End your paper with a few concrete, well-worded clauses that you could realistically see in a draft resolution. It shows the committee you’re here to build, not just to talk.

Frequently Asked Questions for MUN Delegates

As you dive into your research, you'll find that a few key questions about the Israel-Palestine two-state solution pop up constantly. Getting a solid handle on these topics is your first step to mastering the debate and building credible arguments in committee. Let’s break them down.

What Are the 1967 Borders?

Think of the "1967 borders," also known as the Green Line, as the starting point for almost every serious negotiation. These aren't ancient borders, but rather the armistice lines drawn after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. For nearly two decades, they acted as Israel's de facto boundaries until the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel took control of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Today, when diplomats talk about a Palestinian state, the conversation almost always begins with the 1967 lines. The most common proposal isn't a strict return to those exact lines, but a formula involving "land swaps." This means Palestine would be based on the 1967 territory, but Israel would annex some of its large, established settlement blocs in the West Bank. In return, the future Palestinian state would receive an equivalent amount of land from what is now Israel.

What Is the Difference Between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas?

This is a crucial distinction that often confuses new delegates. The Palestinian political landscape is deeply divided, and understanding the two main factions is key.

The Palestinian Authority (PA), which is dominated by the Fatah party, currently administers parts of the West Bank. It is the body that the international community officially recognizes and engages with for diplomatic purposes. Crucially, the PA is on record supporting a negotiated two-state solution.

Hamas, on the other hand, is an Islamist political and militant movement that has governed the Gaza Strip since winning elections in 2006 and subsequently clashing with Fatah. While some of its leaders have occasionally floated the idea of a long-term truce or a state based on the 1967 lines, the group’s official charter does not recognize Israel. This fundamental division in Palestinian leadership is a massive roadblock to any peace process.

Why Is the Status of Jerusalem So Contentious?

Jerusalem is the emotional and religious heart of the conflict. The city's status is so explosive because both Israelis and Palestinians have profound, non-negotiable claims to it as their capital, and it is home to some of the holiest sites for Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

For Israel, the city is its "eternal and undivided capital." This claim extends to East Jerusalem, which it captured in 1967 and later annexed.

For Palestinians, East Jerusalem is the intended capital of their future independent state. This is seen as an absolute requirement for any viable state.

The issue goes far beyond political control; it's about sovereignty over deeply sacred places like the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. Nearly every peace plan has tried to square this circle with creative solutions—like a divided city or a shared international capital—but it remains one of the most difficult knots to untie.

What Is a Right of Return?

The "right of return" is a core Palestinian demand asserting that refugees who were displaced during the 1948 and 1967 wars, along with their descendants, have a right to go back to their homes and lands in what is now Israel.

For Palestinians, this is an issue of fundamental justice, rooted in international law and personal history. For Israel, allowing millions of Palestinian refugees to return is viewed as a demographic existential threat that would undermine its identity as a Jewish-majority state.

Because of this impasse, most negotiations have focused on compromises. These often include financial compensation for refugees, resettlement in the new Palestinian state, or a symbolic, limited return of a small number of refugees to Israel. A full, unlimited "right of return" is a non-starter for any Israeli government.

Navigating these complex topics requires solid preparation and strategic insight. Model Diplomat is designed to be your AI-powered co-delegate, providing the research, speechwriting assistance, and strategic guidance you need to excel in committee. Start your preparation today at https://modeldiplomat.com.