The two-state solution debate and Türkiye’s strategic patience

Over the weekend, I had the privilege of moderating a panel at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum (ADF) titled “Peace in the Middle East: Time for a Two-State Solution.” The panel brought together high-level speakers who analyzed the issue from both on-the-ground developments and ongoing diplomatic efforts. The session’s title reflected a core thesis: that peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without the establishment of a Palestinian state.

As expected, the discussion had to address many grim realities—ones that often leave the audience feeling pessimistic. Since October 7, Israel’s use of humanitarian aid as a weapon, alongside its ethnic cleansing and genocidal policies, has left no room for a viable two-state solution. Key themes such as the ineffectiveness of international pressure without U.S. backing and the increasingly dire humanitarian conditions made clear just how distant peace feels today.

Still, as emphasized in ADF’s overarching theme, “persistent diplomacy” must be paired with strategic patience if we’re to see any long-term progress. These qualities remain critical in a region where solutions often feel impossible—until they’re not.

Humanitarian Aid as a Weapon

One of the session’s key topics was Israel’s transformation of humanitarian aid into a weapon of war, in blatant disregard of international law. Even before October 7, Israel kept Gaza under a strict blockade, severely limiting the flow of humanitarian supplies. During the current war, it has used starvation as a tactic to force Palestinians to flee their homes.

Now, in ceasefire negotiations with Hamas, whether or not aid is allowed in has itself become a bargaining chip—an outcome that completely disregards the rules of war. The direct attacks on UNRWA, one of the most vital aid agencies for Palestinians, and the suspension of its funding by the U.S., clearly show how humanitarian efforts have been targeted. As Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said, letting food rot at border crossings amounts to a crime against humanity.

Using aid as leverage to break Palestinian resistance and force population displacement is not just a war tactic—it’s a deliberate move to eliminate the viability of a two-state solution.

The Viability of a Two-State Solution

The peace process that began with the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Oslo Accords was supposed to lead to a long-term resolution. But the failure of the U.S. and Western powers to pressure Israel has left the process in shambles. Over the past three decades, Israel has deepened its occupation while portraying Palestinians as the obstacle to peace.

Although many countries express support for a return to the 1967 borders, few have backed their words with meaningful pressure. Meanwhile, the U.S. has used its global influence not to push for peace but to shield Israel, turning the two-state solution into a mirage.

The Palestinian Authority, confined to governing under Israeli-imposed security arrangements in the West Bank, was built on the premise that Palestinians would one day govern themselves. But that promise, too, proved hollow. As Israel systematically erodes any path toward Palestinian self-governance while deepening its occupation, it no longer even feels the need to pay lip service to the two-state framework.

Strategic Patience

Palestinian resistance entered a new phase after October 7. Israel’s open pursuit of ethnic cleansing and genocide has exposed it in the eyes of international audiences—particularly younger generations. Despite losing legitimacy on the world stage, Israel cannot erase the idea of Palestinian statehood as long as Palestinians remain committed to their national identity and right to self-determination.

As Sigrid Kaag, the UN’s Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, said during the session, the international community must act swiftly and insistently to implement the two-state solution. Waiting for the “right conditions on the ground” only benefits Israel and delays the creation of a Palestinian state.

This is why Türkiye continues to insist on a two-state solution: because real peace begins with the Palestinians determining their own future.

Learning from the Syrian Precedent

There are lessons to be drawn from Syria. Not long ago, many believed the Assad regime would remain in power indefinitely—only for it to nearly collapse within weeks. While the dynamics in Palestine are very different, the lesson remains: illegitimate political structures cannot endure forever.

This is the perspective from which Turkish foreign policy can make a real difference. During another ADF session, Deputy Foreign Minister Nuh Yılmaz was asked by moderator Kılıç Kanat what key lessons Türkiye has learned in recent years. His response—referencing President Erdoğan’s emphasis on “cutting your own path” and patience—applies equally to the Palestinian cause.

Palestinians have long paid the price of being caught in the middle of great power politics. But their unwavering commitment to building their own state, despite immense suffering, has gained them global sympathy and exposed Israel’s actions for what they are. Going forward, Türkiye—arguably the strongest advocate for Palestine—must remain consistent in providing humanitarian aid, engaging in diplomacy, and sustaining international pressure on Israel.

However distant it may seem, if strategic patience could bring change in Syria, there’s every reason to believe it can do the same in Palestine.