In an interview with JURIST’s Divyabharthi Baradhan, Professor Manlio Graziano,* an expert in geopolitics at Sciences Po Paris, explores whether the two-state solution is an effective means of bringing lasting peace between the two states, taking into account the historical context, power dynamics, as well as lessons learned from other state partitions in the past.
While tensions between Jewish and Arab communities in the region date back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict took its current form in 1948, the year of the first Arab-Israeli war. The conflict emerged in the aftermath of the UN’s adoption of Resolution 181, known as the partition plan. The Resolution aimed to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. The intensity of the conflict grew over the years, as the Israeli forces took control of the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War of 1967. Hamas’ attack against Israel on October 7, 2023 sparked another wave of conflict, leading to a major humanitarian crisis, with at least 68,000 Palestinians reportedly killed and more than 170,000 injured as of November 4, 2025.
In August, the Famine Review Committee officially determined that famine (IPC Phase 5) was under way in Gaza, as many were left “at heightened risk of a rapid collapse in health and nutrition status.” This came amid Israeli authorities’ blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the operation of its private US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) to deliver aid instead.
Recently, 142 UN Member States voted for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, endorsing the New York declaration. The declaration recognizes Palestinians’ right to self-determination and statehood, as enumerated under Article 2 of the UN Charter. This follows the finding of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory that Israeli forces have committed genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza.
The two-state solution calls for Israel and Palestine to establish two independent states existing in parallel with security guaranteed from both sides. It was first mutually agreed by both parties in the 1993 Oslo Agreement, which now remains in a stalemate. The situation has starkly changed since 1993 due to persistent conflicts, resulting in a series of failed ceasefire agreements over the years. Indeed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s contradiction with US President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan, where he “firmly opposed a Palestinian state”, highlights the urgency of the situation in Palestine.
Since the initial phase of the 20-point peace plan took effect on October 9, Gaza authorities have reported that Israel has violated the truce at least 47 times, with the latest “powerful strikes” killing 104 Palestinians. Hamas, on the other hand, has reportedly carried out public executions of people associated with anti-Hamas militias for allegedly collaborating with Israel. This comes amid the increasing Israeli settlers’ violence against Palestinian farmers in the occupied West Bank, as warned by the regional head of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
In light of the recent events, the pursuit of Palestinians’ right to self-determination is at the crossroads of their right to life, as the struggle for one threatens the survival of the other. The livelihood of Palestinians now remains hanging in the balance, with the risk of losing a whole generation of children as warned by the UN. Therefore, it is important to analyze the two-state solution from the perspective of geopolitics, beyond the legal concept of statehood.
JURIST: In light of the long history of conflict between Israel and Palestine, dating back to 1948 when Nakba, the mass displacement of Palestinians, happened, and the alleged ongoing genocide of the Palestinians, could you explain whether the two-state solution is an effective means of bringing lasting peace between the two states?
Professor Manlio Graziano: First, I don’t believe it’s a solution at all. This conflict isn’t about political or military goals anymore—it’s about vengeance, especially on Israel’s side against Gaza. Today Israel is fighting an incorporeal enemy—not an army, not a political project, just vengeance. And ever since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, the so-called “two-state” situation has really become a “three-state” situation. There was an internal dispute between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. When vengeance is combined with the imbalance of power between Israel and the Palestinians, the idea of two equal states becomes completely unrealistic.
Second, if we still treat it as a “solution” in a practical sense, history shows it doesn’t work. For example, the India-Pakistan partition, which ended in violence, ethnic cleansing, and long-term hostility. Separating Jews and Arabs into two blocs is not going to bring peace. Historically, partitions don’t work—they usually end in violence and displacement. If anything, the only chance for stability would be in a framework where the two populations are merged and learn to live together, with shared institutions, rather than separated.
I would also personally avoid using the word “genocide” because what we are witnessing is clearly a humanitarian catastrophe, and it seems senseless to argue over a single term. More importantly, we live in societies deeply marked by anti-Judaism, and I strongly suspect—almost with certainty—that the insistence on this particular word is often intended to relativize the extermination of the Jews during World War II, as well as the persecutions they suffered in previous centuries at the hands of Christians. Nothing can be compared to the fate of the Jewish people. I can clearly see that there is an ongoing massacre of Palestinians, their persecution, and a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. However, I deliberately refrain from using the word “genocide.”
JURIST: In the past, there were many incidents of state partitions. How does the Israel-Palestine conflict differ from those, and what lessons can we draw from them?
Graziano: The closest example is the India and Pakistan partition in 1947. The result was a disaster: millions of Muslims were expelled from the Indian side, and millions of Hindus and Sikhs were expelled from the Pakistani side. Hundreds of thousands were killed, and the hostility is still there seventy years later.
That’s the danger here. A two-state solution would leave minorities on both sides of the line, and that becomes the seed for endless conflict. There are minority Arabs in Israel, and minority Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Partitions don’t resolve the conflict— they inflame it.
JURIST: You have written that the two-state solution would carry the risk “plunging them into what philosopher Thomas Hobbes called the ‘state of nature’”—that is, a permanent “war of every man against every man.” Could you explain more about this, particularly whether the two-state solution could potentially make the current situation worse?
Graziano: In the article I used it rhetorically, but what I meant is, if you impose two states, you create conditions for chaos. Settlers won’t just leave, Palestinians themselves are divided, and you risk militias and factions fighting on all sides. So yes, it could spiral into something very close to Hobbes’s description—a war of everyone against everyone. And it wouldn’t stop with Israel and Palestine. It would destabilize Lebanon, Jordan, maybe Egypt, and it would also weaken the United States in the region. So it doesn’t solve anything—it multiplies the risks.
JURIST: The proponents of the two-state solution are driven by the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. Based on your political analysis, how would you counter the narrative on self-determination?
Graziano: Self-determination is, in reality, a political slogan. Nobody cared about Palestinians, even less so their self-determination. Did anyone fight for the Sikhs in Punjab? For the Kurds? For the Tamils? No. It’s invoked when it suits power politics, and ignored when it doesn’t. So, the question is not simply about self-determination. What matters is whether people can actually live—whether their right to life is protected. A so-called Palestinian state that is permanently at war—that’s not real self-determination. It’s another form of catastrophe.
*Professor Manlio Graziano teaches Geopolitics at Sciences Po Paris, at the Sorbonne, and at the Geneva Institute of Geopolitics. He founded and directs the Nicholas Spykman International Centre for Geopolitical Analysis. He collaborates with the Corriere della Sera (Milan), Limes (Rome), The Conversation (Paris), and International Affairs Forum (Washington DC). He has published several books, including at Stanford University Press, Columbia University Press, and Palgrave-Macmillan (United States), Mondadori (Italy), and Il Mulino (Italy). He is the author of What Is a Border? and Holy Wars and Holy Alliance: The Return of Religion to the Global Political Stage. He has also published an article in Foreign Policy, titled “The Two-State Solution Is a Recipe for Carnage.”
