Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire that came into effect on October 10th, 2025, with the Israel Defense Force withdrawing to the east of the Gaza Strip and Hamas releasing all living hostages. However, Israel has accused Hamas of violating the agreement by not releasing all deceased hostages as agreed, with Hamas arguing that the bodies of the remaining deceased hostages can only be accessed with specialized recovery equipment. Israel has threatened military action if the terms continue not to be met. The agreement also did not address Hamas’ disarmament and the future governance of Gaza and does not include recognition of Palestinian statehood or define borders for a future state.

During the months leading to the ceasefire, the question of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine was once again brought to the forefront of discussions. A growing number of countries recently recognized Palestinian statehood and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres declared the two-state solution the ‘only credible path’ to peace, reiterating that Palestinian statehood is a right, not a reward, and stressing the need for a two-state solution to prevent further radicalization.

However, this recent wave of support has been met with strong opposition from Israel and the United States, and the prospects for a two-state solution has not improved despite this significant diplomatic momentum. US officials have described recent moves to recognize Palestinian statehood as a ‘misguided and ill-timed publicity stunt’ that undermines diplomatic efforts and benefits Hamas, with Israel accusing the recognizing countries as rewarding Hamas.

Recent recognitions of Palestinian statehood

Ahead of and during the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Portugal, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, and Monaco formally recognized Palestinian statehood in a coordinated effort, citing the need to protect the viability of a two-state solution. The recognitions have been framed as a necessary step to uphold the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and to counteract actions that undermine a contiguous Palestinian state, which is increasingly threatened by Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the expansion of settlements in the West Bank. These recognitions were largely conditioned on specific political and security reforms, primarily focused on the Palestinian Authority (PA) being reformed, Hamas being excluded from future governance, and the establishment of a Palestinian state based on borders of the 1967 ‘green line.’

However, a number of key countries such as the US, Germany, Italy, and Japan have refrained from recognition. The US, Israel’s long-term ally, believes that recognizing a Palestinian state before a peace agreement would reward terrorism and undermine the prospects for a two-state solution. This view is echoed by Germany, who believes recognition at this stage would be counterproductive and should only occur as the final step in a negotiated two-state solution. Italy does not oppose recognizing a Palestinian state but insists on the complete release of all Israeli hostages held by Hamas and the exclusion of Hamas from any future Palestinian government prior to recognition. Japan has not recognized Palestinian statehood, primarily to maintain its strategic relationship with the US, although Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba emphasized that it is ‘extremely important’ for Palestine to exist in a sustainable manner, living side by side in peace with Israel. As it stands, the US is now the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that does not recognize Palestine as a state. Through the permanent member status, the US holds veto power over any full UN membership bid for Palestine.

At a summit on October 13th, 2025, co-chaired by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and US President Donald Trump, Arab League countries and Turkey signed a joint declaration backing the US-brokered ceasefire. The ‘Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity’ emphasized deradicalization, reconstruction, and governance in Gaza but did not affirm Palestinian statehood. Instead, it outlined a long-term possibility of self-determination ‘when the PA has completed its reform program.’ El-Sisi told the summit that Trump’s proposal represents the ‘last chance’ for peace in the Middle East and reiterated his call for a two-state solution. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also reaffirmed his support for a two-state solution, warning that the Middle East is ‘doomed’ unless a peace process leads to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The Israeli perspective

While Israel has historically been open to the two-state solution, for example former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert have previously expressed support for a two-state solution, Israel’s current leadership continues to reject the establishment of a Palestinian state. Following the October 2025 ceasefire agreement, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed his opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state. While acknowledging the need for Palestinian self-governance, he rejected full sovereignty, saying that the Palestinians ‘must not have the power to destroy us’ and insisting that security authority must remain with Israel.

Israel’s leaders also denounced the recent recognitions as rewards for terrorism and a threat to Israel’s existence. Netanyahu has warned that pressure would not deter Israel from pursuing its objectives and Israeli officials have warned that countries recognizing Palestine would face consequences, with the Israeli government hinting at potential retaliatory measures, including closing the French consulate in Jerusalem or expelling diplomats. Netanyahu has vowed that ‘there will be no Palestinian state,’ asserting Israel’s need for security control over all territory west of the Jordan River, which contradicts the core premise of a sovereign Palestinian state. Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also demanded immediate countermeasures, such as the annexation of the West Bank and the ‘complete crushing’ of the PA.

Despite facing domestic pressure and a lack of official support from the US, Israel continues to advance plans to annex parts of the West Bank, which would effectively end the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. The Israeli government has accelerated the construction of settlements in the West Bank, following a broader strategy of expanding Israeli control and infrastructure. Israeli public opinion appears divided over the current situation, with a poll in August 2025 indicating that about two-thirds of Israelis support a deal with Hamas to end the war and secure the release of hostages, and protests calling for an end to the conflict having become regular occurrences in Tel Aviv and other cities.

The Palestinian perspective

The PA has supported the two-state solution, advocating for a state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and for Palestinians, it has been fundamental to achieve international recognition of the Palestinian statehood. Palestinian officials have viewed the recent recognition, especially by the UK and France, as a long-overdue correction of historical wrongs, and a signal that the international community acknowledges their right to self-determination. However, they insist on a viable Palestinian state with clear, contiguous borders. At the same time, the PA, while internationally recognized, faces legitimacy and operational challenges due to its limited authority, financial strain, and Hamas, which does not officially recognize Israel and opposes its existence, still controlling Gaza.

While Palestinian leaders and activists have welcomed the wave of international recognitions as a significant step, they remain doubtful that this will lead to tangible change on the ground, especially given Israel’s continued settlement expansion and military operations. Many also describe the recognition as ‘too little, too late,’ fearing it will provoke harsh Israeli retaliation, such as accelerated annexation of West Bank territory, rather than advancing peace. While the PA continues to advocate for the two-state solution, they acknowledge that the practical reality has made the vision increasingly remote.

The viability and outlook of the two-state solution

Critics argue that the recent recognitions are insufficient without accompanying practical measures, as it does not resolve issues of Palestinian control in Gaza, where Hamas continues to hold influence, or issues in the West Bank. The Palestinian leadership insists that recognition must be coupled with concrete international pressure to enforce a ceasefire, release hostages, disarm Hamas, and halt settlement building, as these are prerequisites for any meaningful progress.

The viability of the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine has in fact deteriorated since Hamas’ attack on October 7th, 2023, and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza, which has led to a near-total collapse of the Gaza Strip. This has been accompanied by a clear shift in Israeli political leadership, exemplified by Netanyahu and other senior officials explicitly rejecting the two-state solution and the continued settlement expansion. Netanyahu has declared that Israel requires security control over all territory west of the Jordan River and that Palestinian hopes for a sovereign state ‘must be eliminated.’

Although these settlements have been declared illegal by UN experts and international bodies under international law, there is no indication of Israeli withdrawal. Israel’s firm opposition and the lack of support from the US administration makes the feasibility of the two-state solution highly uncertain. The West Bank is heavily fragmented by Israeli settlements, military zones, and infrastructure under Israeli control, making a contiguous Palestinian state increasingly improbable without significant reversal of current policies. While Trump recently made a statement indicating he will prevent Israel from annexing the West Bank, his administration continues to back Israel’s military actions. Given the current trajectory, some argue that the two-state solution has been replaced by a de facto one-state reality, characterized by Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza, despite the recognitions of Palestinian statehood.

Key takeaways about a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine

While the international community has revived its support for the two-state solution as the best path to peace, the solution cannot be seen as a viable or realistic option. The political and territorial realities, including Israel’s explicit rejection of Palestinian sovereignty and accelerated settlement expansion. This rejection, combined with the accelerated construction of settlements, makes a contiguous Palestinian state practically impossible.

At Silobreaker, we understand the critical impact that geopolitical conflicts can have on your organization. Learn more about how geopolitical and physical risk Intelligence intelligence from Silobreaker can provide the comprehensive intelligence you need to navigate risks, seize opportunities and remain resilient.