Bridging the Unbridgeable: Two Perspectives on the Two-State Solution

For many Democrats in the United States, the two-state solution remains the only moral and realistic path to ensuring peace, dignity and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians.

After two decades in which the War on Terror - and now the war in Gaza - have failed to produce lasting stability, Democrats increasingly argue that force cannot be the only solution. Beyond the moral claims, they can easily - and quite accurately - argue that if Israel wants to remain the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people, it cannot both control millions of Palestinians (which challenges its democratic character) and avoid becoming a binational state (which would end its identity as the nation-state of the Jewish people).

But in Israel, the same idea triggers concern, if not fear. Many Israelis view a potential Palestinian state not as a path to coexistence but as a strategic threat. We remember that the withdrawal from Gaza resulted not in peace, but in Hamas’s takeover, which many directly link to the October 7 attacks. We recall the Second Intifada, when exploding buses became a nightmarish routine, even though the Palestinian Authority’s leadership at the time spoke about coexistence. Now we look at the West Bank and a lot of Israelis, not just right-wingers, are understandably skeptical: can we trust the Palestinian leadership - even though Israel is partially responsible for its weakening? Can we withdraw and risk Hamas taking over the hills overlooking Tel Aviv?

Senator Bernie Sanders. While we agree with some of his criticism, saying he is “not an expert on why Israel changed” reflects exactly the blind spot widening the gap between Israel and Democrats.

In an interview on Pod Save America, Senator Bernie Sanders spoke at length about the trajectory Israel is headed in. While we agree with some of his criticism of how the Gaza war was handled and of the horrible nature of nationalist violence in the West Bank, he missed something crucial. Saying he is “not an expert on why Israel changed” reflects exactly the blind spot widening the gap between Israel and Democrats.

Israelis changed because our lived experience changed. We endured years of attacks against civilians, watched every territorial withdrawal exploited by extremists - ISIS in Sinai, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza - and heard international actors repeatedly claim that “we didn’t do enough,” consistently underestimating our security concerns. This is not meant to justify a policy position, and definitely not to defend Israeli actions - but to highlight the reasons for "why Israel changed". We believe ignoring those reasons guarantees failure for any effort to promote peace.

The American optimism that peace must prevail is noble, and it is true that there is no way to keep Israel both Jewish and democratic without some sort of partition of the land, but sometimes even noble ideals and hard truths cannot overcome fear. While we believe territorial concessions can be a legitimate policy step, Israeli skepticism about the deadly risks of such concessions is a lesson learned in blood, and should be addressed seriously.

Naftali Bennet and Yair Lapid. Lapid joined Bennet because his voters believe there is no political horizon for a final-status agreement, no trust between the parties, and no domestic consensus on either side.

Even a new government in Israel is not enough to change the nature of that gap. There is a reason that Yair Lapid, who as prime minister on the UN stage committed to the two-state solution, joined Naftali Bennett in a joint list in the coming elections: Lapid and his voters believe there is no political horizon for a final-status agreement, no trust between the parties, and no domestic consensus on either side. Even the Democrats, who openly support the two-state solution (the last Zionist party to do so), will run the coming campaign on civilian issues like the justice system, police reform, and church-and-state.

Israelis must recognize that Democrats are not naïve (and definitely not ill-intended) for insisting on Palestinian dignity, and Democrats must recognize that when Israelis insist on security, our concerns are real and not politically motivated.

So what do we do? How can we - the majority of Israelis, who want peace and theoretically are willing to take risks for it, but are not sure how to pursue it - commit to our alliance with liberals in America without creating the false impression that “once Netanyahu is gone, everything will be fine”? The hard truth is that there is no silver bullet, but there are a couple of steps.

The mistake is assuming that a shouting match will close this gap - that if one side is "bold" enough or "morally clear" enough, the other will “open its eyes.” It won’t. Instead, both sides must acknowledge each other’s beliefs and fears without dismissing them. This means Israelis must recognize that Democrats are not naïve (and definitely not ill-intended) for insisting on Palestinian dignity, and Democrats must recognize that when Israelis insist on security, our concerns are real and not politically motivated. An Israeli-Democratic dialogue will have to be grounded in deep empathy - not just politeness, but actually putting ourselves in one another’s shoes - rather than insisting solely on “our truth.”

But empathy is just the first step. Analytical understanding of why the other side thinks as it does is crucial: when Americans overlook “why Israel changed,” they cannot effectively promote their ideals because their arguments fall on deaf ears. When Israelis dismiss American insistence on liberal values like self-determination, we empower the claims of our enemies who insist that Israel is inherently evil.

Bridging the gap may be impossible today. But addressing it - honestly, respectfully, without illusions - is the only way to keep the U.S.–Israel alliance strong while keeping the hope for a better future alive.

When Americans overlook “why Israel changed,” they cannot effectively promote their ideals because their arguments fall on deaf ears. When Israelis dismiss American insistence on liberal values like self-determination, we empower the claims of our enemies who insist that Israel is inherently evil.

If you liked our work, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here. For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.