A two-state solution is missing from Israel’s election debate

By the Editorial Team · Wednesday, September 9, 2026

As Israel prepares for its general election on October 27, major Jewish political parties are largely avoiding discussions on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and reject the two-state solution. This lack of commitment to peace negotiations raises concerns about increased annexation, continued settlement expansion, and deepening internal divisions, with few viable plans proposed to address the conflict’s long-term impact.

As Israel approaches its general election scheduled for October 27, the question of how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains notably absent from public debate, particularly among parties likely to form the next government. Despite the conflict’s central role in Israel’s political and social landscape, there is little to no commitment from major Jewish political parties to pursue a two-state solution, which envisions the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Current coalition parties have explicitly rejected the idea of creating a Palestinian state, with some advocating for full annexation of the West Bank and even extending sovereignty claims to the Gaza Strip. These factions continue to support settlement expansion and policies aimed at encouraging Palestinian residents to leave, a practice critics describe as forced displacement. In contrast, parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel remain supportive of a two-state solution. Ra’am party leader Mansour Abbas recently emphasized the role of Arab citizens of Israel as facilitators of peace, calling for recognition of a Palestinian state and an end to the occupation and ongoing conflict. Abbas pointed out that most countries already recognize Palestinian statehood, a stance rejected by both Israel and the United States.

Abbas’s statements sparked controversy within Israeli political discourse, highlighting deep divisions. Key candidates in the race, including Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot, as well as figures like Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid, and Avigdor Lieberman, reportedly dismiss the two-state approach, favoring alternative strategies that focus primarily on managing tensions rather than resolving the underlying conflict.

Should the opposition gain enough seats to challenge the current coalition, their proposals appear limited to halting further annexation efforts and curbing settler violence. While these measures could reduce immediate hostilities, analysts say they fall short of offering a comprehensive plan for lasting peace.

Observers note the absence of substantive discussion about the broader implications of the prolonged conflict. The impact of the occupation on Palestinian communities is widely acknowledged, but there is less public dialogue about how the ongoing conflict affects Israeli society internally, including rising violence and social divisions. The recent trauma of the October 7 attacks, described as the deadliest against Jewish civilians since World War II, has underscored concerns about national security, yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, known as “Mr. Security,” has resisted the formation of a state commission to investigate the incident fully.

Experts and political commentators stress the importance of confronting difficult questions before the election: How will continued rejection of Palestinian statehood influence Israel’s global standing? What are the long-term consequences for Israeli democracy and identity when the conflict remains unresolved? The coming weeks present an opportunity for deeper public discourse on these matters, but so far, the election debate remains marked by silence on one of the country’s most pressing challenges.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.