Is a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict viable? ‘A Land for All’ has an audacious vision

Gaza’s future is being contested on every front. The Gulf states propose sweeping reconstruction while Israel advances a security blueprint and Palestinian groups set out their own competing visions. Into this fraught landscape enters a different idea: “A Land For All” is a joint Israeli-Palestinian initiative that advocates for two states within a shared homeland, a shared Jerusalem, joint security and, eventually, freedom of movement. It challenges the old model of separation and asks both peoples to imagine a more humane existence. The movement’s directors are May Pundak, an Israeli lawyer and feminist activist, and Rula Hardal, a Palestinian citizen of Israel and lecturer in political science. 

Pundak and Hardal spoke to Monocle Radio’s The Globalist to share their vision for a united future.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Listen to the full conversation on ‘The Globalist’. 

May, what kind of political future do you imagine for Israelis and Palestinians beyond the current reality?
This is exactly the moment that we should all face the unknown and start articulating a clear vision for the future of Israeli and Palestinian people. And, of course, how to solve the conflict in a way that would be sustainable, just and acceptable for both. What we are offering is ‘two states, one homeland’: two sovereign and independent states, Israel and Palestine, with a clear border along 1967 lines. And, on top of that, there would be another added value: a new model of shared institutions to take care of the things that have to be taken care of, shared and jointly, without taking away from the sovereignty of the two states.

I refer to France, Germany and the EU models as inspirations that can lead us to the independence, separation and safety that we need. But we understand that there are multiple challenges, including security, economics, water and Jerusalem, as well as infrastructure and climate, which demand us to work in tight co-operation. Any realisation of interdependency between Israelis and Palestinians at this point demands a political vision that answers those needs. 

Rula, how does this differ from the classic two-state solution?
The whole approach is different by moving away from segregation and separation – which we view as immoral, supremacist, unrealistic – into a new approach and paradigm of how to get to the two states based on sharing. We are using the same land, the same resources, the same streets, sometimes the same economy. 

A second difference that we offer with the confederation model – shared institutions and freedom of movement – is that it will gradually and hopefully lead to new approaches and solutions to the deadlocks of the classic two-state solution, which include Jerusalem, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, settlers and settlements.

May, how would you plan to deal with the complexities of Jerusalem?
It is becoming clearer for anyone who has lived, resided or visited Jerusalem in the past few years that the city is not meant to be divided. Carving up the capital is impossible by its own internal logic, not to mention the soul of the city or the way that we perceive it. And then for practical reasons, we’re not going to build a big wall in the middle of the holy city.

Jerusalem is a place that tells the story that we’re trying to tell on a more political level: most Israelis and Jews see all of this homeland, from the river to the sea, including Judea and Samaria, as their homeland. Jews have an attachment to the entirety of the land – but so do Palestinians. For Palestinians, from the river to the sea will always be Palestine, including Jerusalem and other cities that would remain, in our plan, under the jurisdiction of Israel.

But the idea that we both share the attachment to this homeland – such a strong emotional connection – as a place that divides us is where we differ from the classic two-state solution. This is where we say that we will have to share some things in order to make it work. Jerusalem is a great example for that for practical reasons and emotional ones. 

And Rula, what are the challenges that you face in implementing this plan, from politicians and two divided populations?
The first challenge is that leadership on both sides are unwilling to find a solution to the conflict and seek symmetry between the warring parties. From the whole development of the Israeli political system to the ideologies and components of the current coalition – particularly the Likud party, which has been governing Israel with one short exception since 2009 – it is clear that everything is being done to prevent the establishment and the recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state. It’s not a hidden agenda; it’s something that they emphasise every day, including Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

The second obstacle is the recent political developments. It has been about a month since the announcement of Donald Trump’s plan, a historic stop to the atrocities and genocidal war in Gaza. But still, there is no serious conversation about a Palestinian state or a permanent solution to the conflict. I am afraid that, following this fragile ceasefire, we might enter a new-old status quo, where we are still not speaking about the recognition of Palestine, ending the occupation and creating two states. 

May, how do you go about getting buy-in from all the other interested parties, from the Gulf states to the US?
The commitment needs to be about realising a ceasefire – which has already been breached multiple times at this point – but also putting forward a clear, rational and acceptable vision for how to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict once and for all. If we do not commit to such a vision, we are going to be in a much worse situation than 7 October. This is a historic moment that has to be seized. From our experience over the past few months, there has been growing interest in Israel, Palestine, the Gulf states, the Middle East and in the international community over a pragmatic approach to the two states that will allow us to solve the dispute. 
What we are trying to do now is build a movement of Israelis and Palestinians – people committed to ending the conflict and taking agency for our own future as our leadership has failed to do. Important interlocutors from across the globe are buying into this idea, especially as we have already been able to solve some things that seemed intractable.

What we ask is for people to read our vision on the website, to start talking about it and understand that this conflict will end, as all conflicts do, and that it can end. We offer a roadmap, a vision and a solution that has been created by experts and multiple people from different communities in Israel and in Palestine over the past 15 years. We have the answers and now we have to move forward and have a clear vision that learns from the mistakes of previous failed negotiations, as well as the success stories of other conflicts that have been solved in a sustainable way. That’s exactly what we’re doing, building from the bottom up and the top down.