Those who are dedicated to the concept of a two-state solution because it is fair and equitable, might be interested in the application of this idea to other international conflicts than the Israel-Palestine one. For example, the US has been in conflict with the native tribes of North America (incorrectly called “Indians”) for many years. There is no doubt that the European settlers stole the land of the natives and then forced them into inferior regions called “reservations.”
For example, the three tribes of Chickasaw, Chocktaw and Cherokee were forced under Pres. Jackson to leave the region of Alabama in 1830-35 and go on the “Trail of tears” to Oklahoma, where they were “resettled.” On this march of about 300 miles, euphemistically called “the Indian removal,” about 25% of the members of these tribes perished. Has the US given the descendants of these tribes and the many others who were dispossessed any recompense for the inhumane way they were treated as well as the value of the real estate stolen from them? I propose a two-state solution to this enduring problem. Let the US and the native tribes divide the land between them, and then each would have their own self-determination. However, there must be guarantees, because the US promised to honor their agreements with many of these tribes in perpetuity, but of course the US broke its word. Clearly the US cannot be trusted to keep international agreements.
I believe this type of two-state solution should also be applied to the situation in the so-called United Kingdom, which of course was united under England by force. The formerly independent regions of Scotland, Wales and Ireland have waited hundreds of years to achieve independence. Ireland achieved it finally after extreme conflict in 1949, although Northern Ireland still remains part of the UK. Scotland is probably about to achieve independence due to the overwhelming victory of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the last election, and Wales has only a local Council under the devolution plan of the UK Parliament. In this case a four-state solution is in order.
Of course, the two-state solution can be applied in other conflicts, such as between Ukraine and Russia, or between the Islamic State (or more correctly the Islamic Caliphate) and Iraq and Syria, then there is Australia and the Aborigines and New Zealand and the Maoris. Why is it only Israel that is forced by perceived wisdom and public opinion to accept a Palestinian terrorist state next to it, why shouldn’t all these other so righteous countries accept a two-state solution to their conflicts? Why is it only Israel that is subject to the pressure of the world to concede?