Should a two-state or one-state solution be pursued to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should a two-state or one-state solution be pursued to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?". Your opponent's style: Pro palestinian

I believe there should be a one-state solution that should only be Israel. I believe this because time and time again palestinians in gaza and the west bank have proved that they cannot make peace with the Israelis and October 7th proved it.

You're using fear to erase a people. October 7th was a response to decades of occupation, settlements, and blockades—not proof Palestinians can't coexist. You're confusing resistance to dispossession with inability to make peace. A Jewish-only state means ethnically cleansing 5+ million Palestinians. That's not a solution, that's genocide. Even Israel's own security experts reject this—one-state Jewish supremacy guarantees endless conflict, not peace. The real question: can Israelis accept Palestinians as equal citizens with full rights? Because that's what a genuine one-state solution requires. If you're saying no—if Palestinians must disappear or submit—then you're not talking about peace. You're talking about conquest. What's your answer: equal rights for Palestinians in one state, or ethnic domination?

A lot of questions here. Let's start one by one. No, I am not using fear to erase a people and I'd like to say I never said we should erase any people. Did I say we should kill anybody because I don't think so? October 7th was an attack to occupation? Really? So why did they attack civilians? Why were innocent women raped? Why were they attacking a music festival when all people were trying to do was dance? A jewish only state does NOT mean ethnically cleansing 5 million people and that's not a genocide. They can go to Jordan or be accepted in other Arab countries because they do not originate from Israel or "Palestine". And no, we cannot accept palestinians as equal citizens with full rights because most of them consistently say they want to kill jews. How can we co-exist with these people?

You're hiding ethnic cleansing behind the word "relocation." Telling 5 million people "go to Jordan" IS forced displacement—that's the definition of ethnic cleansing. Jordan didn't agree to absorb them, and you can't just exile people from their homes for 75 years. October 7th targeting civilians was wrong. But Israeli airstrikes kill ten times more civilians—mostly women and children. Dead is dead. If brutality disqualifies Palestinians from statehood, it disqualifies Israel from ruling them. Your last point kills your own argument: if Palestinians "want to kill Jews," they'll keep fighting under Israeli rule. A one-state Jewish supremacy guarantees perpetual war, not peace. Two states at least creates separation and breathing room. You've proven my point for me.

Ok, the power is in your hands. What's your solution

Two-state solution with real teeth: borders based on 1967 lines, shared Jerusalem as capital for both, Palestinian right of return for refugees, and Israeli security guarantees. Neither side gets everything—that's why it works. One state under either power means the minority gets crushed forever. You've already admitted Palestinians won't accept Jewish rule. Israelis won't accept Palestinian majority rule. So force them together and you get permanent occupation or civil war. Two states means Palestinians govern themselves, Israelis govern themselves. Trade, security cooperation, shared resources. It's messy but it's the only model where both peoples survive with dignity. Your choice: partition or perpetual conflict. There's no third option.

I never understand the argument that palestinians deserve east jerusalem. With east jerusalem in israel's control, we let muslims pray in al aqsa mosque and for some reason jews aren't allowed to pray at their holiest site, dome of the rock but jews are thankfully allowed to visit and pray at the western wall. When east jerusalem was under palestinian control, not only were jews not allowed to pray at the dome of the rock, but not even the western wall. this isn't fair.

You're comparing access under occupation to what could exist under peace. East Jerusalem under Palestinian control in 1948-1967 was wartime—Jordanian military rule, not Palestinian governance. That's not the precedent. But here's your real problem: you want Jews praying at Islam's third-holiest site. That's not about fairness, that's about dominance. Muslims don't demand to pray in synagogues as a rights issue. A shared Jerusalem means joint administration, not Israeli control. International law, joint police, agreed access. Jews get the Western Wall, Muslims get Al-Aqsa. Both sides compromise on the Dome—maybe joint heritage status. You're using religious supremacy to justify political control. That's exactly why one-state fails.

I want jews praying at islam's third holiest site? No, I want JEWS praying at their HOLIEST site. it is more holy to jews than it is for islam. And yes you can compare occupation during wartime because israel has been in wartime since october 7th and STILL lets palestinians pray at the al-aqsa mosque.

Wrong. The Dome of the Rock isn't your holiest site—the Temple underneath it is, and that's archaeologically disputed. Muslims built the Dome there 1,300 years ago. You can't demand to excavate Islam's sacred mosque because you think something holy might be underneath. Israel lets Palestinians pray at Al-Aqsa under military occupation. That's not generosity, that's control. You're the power holding the keys. Shared Jerusalem means neither side dominates. Jews get prayer rights at the Western Wall, Muslims at Al-Aqsa. You don't get to excavate someone else's holiest site because yours might be buried there. That's not fairness. That's conquest dressed up as theology.

You're just proving my point. there is a temple underneath it. When somebody comes in and build something on top of something to hide that a culture was once there, what is that called? Sounds like colonization to me!

You're inverting history. Jews left Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. Muslims built Al-Aqsa 1,300 years ago on empty land—not colonization, it's called time passing. Then Jews came back in 1948 claiming the same land. That's colonization. And no archaeologist agrees the Temple is definitely under the Dome. It's speculation used to justify excavation and mosque destruction. You want to tear down Islam's holiest site based on "maybe there's something under it." That's not reclaiming your past. That's erasing theirs to rewrite history. Two-state solution solves this: each people controls their own sacred sites. You don't need to excavate Palestinian Jerusalem to pray.