THE ISSUE WITH A TWO STATE SOLUTION LIES WITHIN PALESTINE ITSELF.

The division between the?Palestinian Authority (PA)?and?Hamas?significantly complicates efforts toward achieving a?two-state solution?to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Negotiating a two-state solution requires a unified Palestinian leadership that can represent all Palestinians, but the PA only controls parts of the?West Bank, while?Hamas?governs the?Gaza Strip. Israel and many international actors, including the?United States?and the?European Union, refuse to engage with Hamas because it is considered a terrorist organization by them. This means that even if a peace agreement were reached with the PA, Hamas would not necessarily be bound by it. The split between the PA and Hamas means that any agreement reached by one faction would face opposition from the other, undermining the legitimacy and implementation of a two-state solution. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank may have differing views and experiences under their respective governments, which further complicates consensus. The PA, led by?Fatah, advocates for a negotiated settlement with Israel and supports the idea of a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist and has historically called for the liberation of all of historic Palestine, rejecting the two-state framework. This hardline stance is a major obstacle to peace negotiations, as it presents a fundamental incompatibility with the PA’s approach.The international community, particularly the?United States,?European Union, and?United Nations, has consistently supported a two-state solution. However, the divided Palestinian leadership makes it difficult for these actors to effectively mediate or advance peace efforts. The lack of unity weakens the Palestinian position in negotiations. The Gaza Strip, under Hamas, has experienced severe economic and humanitarian crises due to blockades, internal mismanagement, and conflict with Israel. This creates a challenging environment for any future negotiations and reconstruction efforts. The PA, on the other hand, receives international aid and recognition, but is unable to assert authority over Gaza. Even if a two-state solution were agreed upon by the PA and Israel, implementing it in both the West Bank and Gaza would be nearly impossible without Hamas’ cooperation. The absence of Palestinian unity risks creating a situation where one part of the Palestinian territories accepts the solution, while another continues to resist, prolonging the conflict and instability. Israel has used the Palestinian political split to argue that there is no single entity capable of negotiating or implementing a comprehensive peace deal. This has given Israel more leverage in delaying peace talks and taking unilateral actions such as expanding settlements in the West Bank, which further diminishes the prospects for a viable Palestinian state. The ongoing rift between the PA and Hamas is one of the central obstacles to a two-state solution. Without Palestinian unity, any attempt to negotiate or implement a solution will remain fragile and incomplete, exacerbating tensions and delaying the possibility of resolving the conflict. Both internal Palestinian reconciliation and broader international efforts are critical to moving toward a realistic two-state framework.