The two-state solution is a proposed approach to resolving the Israeli–Palestinian (Israel-Palestine) conflict, by creating two states on the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine. It is often contrasted with the one-state solution, which is the establishment a single state in former Mandatory Palestine with equal rights for all its inhabitants. The two-state solution is supported by many countries and the Palestinian Authority.[1] Israel currently does not support the idea, though it has in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

• The first proposal for separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937.[3] In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a partition plan for Palestine, leading to the 1948 Palestine war.[4][5] As a result, Israel was established on the area the UN had proposed for the Jewish state, as well as almost 60% of the area proposed for the Arab state. Israel took control of West Jerusalem, which was meant to be part of an international zone. Jordan took control of East Jerusalem and what became known as the West Bank, annexing it the following year. The territory which became the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt but never annexed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, both the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip have been militarily occupied by Israel, becoming known as the Palestinian territories.
• The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has accepted the concept of a two-state solution since the 1982 Arab Summit.[clarification needed][6] In 2017, Hamas announced their revised charter, which claims to accept the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, but without recognising the statehood of Israel.[7] Diplomatic efforts have centred around realizing a two-state solution, starting from the failed 2000 Camp David Summit and the Clinton Parameters, followed by the Taba Summit in 2001. The failure of the Camp David summit to reach an agreed two-state solution formed the backdrop to the commencement of the Second Intifada, the violent consequences of which marked a turning point among both peoples’ attitudes.[8][9][10] A two-state solution also formed the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative, the 2006–2008 peace offer, and the 2013–14 peace talks. Currently there is no two-state solution proposal being negotiated.

ChatGPT on the details of the 1947 plan

The earliest plan usually referred to is the 1947 UN Partition Plan (UN General Assembly Resolution 181). That’s the one that first proposed an official two-state solution, though later versions (Oslo, Camp David, etc.) reworked the idea. Let’s break down how the 1947 plan envisioned the practicalities of life under two states:

1. Borders and Sovereignty

• Partition into three entities:

  • A Jewish state (about 55% of the land, including the coastal plain, Galilee, and Negev desert).
  • An Arab state (about 45%, including the hill country, Gaza, and parts of Galilee).
  • Jerusalem as an international city under UN administration, not belonging to either side, to protect access to holy sites.

• Each state would be independent, but linked in some areas by economic and administrative union (see below).

2. Government and Power-Sharing

• Each state would form its own Provisional Government before full independence.
• Citizens within each state would be governed by their own authorities.
• Jerusalem would be governed by a UN-appointed Governor with its own council.
• Importantly, there was no envisioned federal government — just two sovereign states plus the international city.

3. Economic Union (Trade, Customs, Currency)

The plan foresaw a Joint Economic Board to manage areas where cooperation was essential:

• Customs union: Common tariffs and no internal customs barriers between the two states.
• Joint currency: A single currency to prevent trade barriers and monetary instability.
• Shared infrastructure: Railways, postal services, ports, and major roads would be coordinated across both states.
• Water rights: Shared management of irrigation, electricity, and water from the Jordan and Litani rivers.

This was meant to soften the harshness of the partition by making both states economically interdependent.

4. Passports, Residency, and Minorities

• Passports/citizenship: Each state would have its own nationality, but people could choose which citizenship to take if they lived in the “other” state.
• Minority protections: Both constitutions were required to guarantee equal rights for minorities (about 45% of the Jewish state would initially be Arab, and ~10% of the Arab state Jewish).
• Free movement: Within the “economic union,” freedom of transit was supposed to be guaranteed, so people could travel between states for work or family without new barriers.

5. Employment and Labor

• Because of the common market, workers were expected to cross borders for jobs (e.g., Arab agricultural workers in Jewish industrial areas).
• Labor laws would be handled separately by each state, but migration for work would remain open.

6. Security and Defense

• Each state could raise its own forces.
• No joint military, but the Economic Union Board would supervise infrastructure security.
• Jerusalem would be demilitarized and under UN protection.

7. The Big Picture

• It was essentially a “two states, one economy” model — sovereignty separated by nationality, but a shared economic and infrastructure system. (kinda like the EU?)
• The aim was to balance independence with interdependence, since partition without cooperation would have been unworkable (the Jewish state was small, landlocked in places, and the Arab state would have limited resources).

Why It Didn’t Happen

• Jewish leaders accepted the plan (despite reservations).
• Arab leaders rejected it, seeing it as illegitimate and unfair (Jews were a third of the population but were allocated more than half the land).
• Once the British withdrew, war broke out in 1948, and the partition plan was never implemented.

ChatGPT on the Oslo Accords plan

👉 Later versions of the “two-state solution” (like the Oslo Accords) dropped the economic union idea and leaned more toward separate sovereignty and borders, which made issues like trade, passports, and employment much more contested.

1. Sovereignty and Borders

• Palestinian Authority (PA): Created in 1994 as an interim government for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
• Phased control: Israel would gradually withdraw from certain areas, leaving the PA in charge of civil affairs and internal security.
• Final status talks (never completed): The idea was to negotiate permanent borders, Jerusalem, and refugees within 5 years.
• Contiguity problem: Unlike the 1947 plan, Oslo did not guarantee a fully connected Palestinian state; instead, it left Palestinian areas fragmented, with Israel controlling borders, settlements, and major roads.

2. Passports, Residency, and Movement

• Palestinian passports/travel documents: Oslo allowed the PA to issue “Palestinian Authority passports” (technically travel documents, since Palestine wasn’t fully recognized as a state).
• Israel controlled borders: Palestinians could only leave or enter through Israeli-controlled crossings (airports, seaports, land borders).
• Work permits: Palestinians needed Israeli-issued permits to work inside Israel. This was a big change from pre-intifada years when movement was mostly open.

3. Economy and Trade

• Paris Protocol (1994): Economic framework signed alongside Oslo.

  • Customs union: The Palestinian economy was tied to Israel’s. Israel collected import duties and VAT on behalf of the PA.
  • Currency: Palestinians used Israeli shekels (no independent central bank).
  • Trade restrictions: Palestinian exports/imports had to go through Israel’s ports, subject to Israeli security checks.

• Dependency: This created heavy reliance on Israeli markets and labor demand.

4. Employment

• Many Palestinians continued to work in Israel (construction, agriculture, services), but only with permits.
• In the 1990s, work permits were a crucial income source, but they were vulnerable to revocation during crises (closures, intifadas).
• Israel also promoted “industrial zones” along the border, where Palestinian labor could be used without crossing deep into Israel.

5. Security and Policing

• Division of the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C (1995):

  • Area A: Full PA control (major cities).
  • Area B: Palestinian civil control, Israeli security control.
  • Area C: Full Israeli control (settlements, strategic land).

• PA police: Allowed to maintain internal order, but Israel retained overriding security authority, especially in border areas.

6. Jerusalem

• Oslo deliberately left Jerusalem unresolved.
• Palestinians wanted East Jerusalem as their capital; Israel claimed the whole city.
• During the interim period, Palestinians in Jerusalem could vote in PA elections but were not given full PA control.

7. Refugees

• Like Jerusalem, the refugee question (millions in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza, West Bank) was left for “final status” talks.
• Oslo didn’t settle whether refugees could return or be compensated.

8. The Big Difference from 1947

• 1947: “Two states, one economy” — designed as economically interdependent equals.
• 1990s Oslo: “Two states, but one is economically subordinate” — Israel kept control over currency, borders, trade, and labor flows.
• Oslo produced a Palestinian quasi-state with limited sovereignty and no guaranteed independence.

👉 The expectation (at least among negotiators like Rabin, Peres, and Arafat) was that the PA would grow into a fully sovereign state through trust-building and phased withdrawals. But the failure of final status talks (Camp David 2000, Taba, later Annapolis) meant that never happened.

Would you like me to also trace how later proposals (like Camp David 2000, Clinton Parameters, or even the 2008 Olmert offer) envisioned solving the practicalities (passports, trade, security, etc.)? Those went into much more detail than Oslo itself.