The Israel-Palestine conflict is a long and complicated affair which began with the British mandate of Palestine. During this time the U.K. was given the responsibility of creating a Jewish majority state in part of Palestine. Both sides cite different documents claiming that the creation of their land came before the others land. The Palestinians citing e a series of letters in 1915 to 1916 between Mecca’s emir and the British high commissioner in Egypt, known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, as outlining a promise of an independent Arab state. While Israelis base their argument on Britain’s former foreign secretary, Lord Arthur Balfour who in a letter to Baron Walter Rothschild expressed his support for an ethnic Israeli state. In any case these letters don’t really prove anything and no longer have any significance to the current political landscape. In 1947 the U.N. passed a resolution urging for the creation of the Israeli and the Palestinian state, while Jerusalem would remain under international control because of its significance to both parties. It was however rejected by the Palestinians, feeling that the resolution was unfair considering their majority population. After Britain was unable to solve the problem, it withdrew in 1948 which was followed by Israel declaring independence and entering a war with five Arab states. By the time the fighting ended Israel had significantly increased its territory now controlling much of the disputed land. As time passes there are more short conflicts between the neighboring Arabs and Israel during which the latter continued building settlements beyond its territory. The first attempt to solve this issue came in 1993 with the Oslo Accords. These Accords however failed as they left the question of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the state of Jerusalem unanswered. Peace talks further broke down when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by a right-wing Israeli extremist. Since then, strings of small conflicts and terrorist attacks have plagued the area, characterized by harsh and disproportionate retaliation by the Israeli military.  
The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been a bloody one which will continue for the unforeseeable future without intervention. Because of this, multiple solutions have been proposed for the resolution of the conflict, the two that gained the most traction being the one-state and two state solutions. Both solutions have their advantages and implications. When choosing a solution, it is important to be familiar with the specific issues that need to be solved. These issues include the expelled Palestinians between 1948 and 1967, the Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank , the significance of a Jewish majority state and the importance of Jerusalem to both Muslims. Because of these many issues the true two state or one state solutions are not effective and the only plausible solution that presents itself is a confederacy. This solution would ensure economic, social and political, stability for all citizens regardless of on which side of the border they live on, without compromising the national identities of the states of Palestine and Israel.  
The two-state solution appears as the most logical and remains the primary solution for the international community. This solution was first proposed in 1948 by the UN, where it was envisioned that 56% of the territory would be allocated to the Jewish state and the remainder to Palestine. This proposal, however, was rejected by the Arab leadership at the time as the territory split was considered unfair because of the Palestinian majority of the land. Since then there have been other attempts to implement the two-state solution, namely the Oslo Accords, which unfortunately has remained an interim agreement for over 30 years and has not found a permanent solution to the conflict. While it isn't unreasonable to blame the parties involved in implementing this agreement it is also important to recognize the faults of the two-state solution and the difficulties which have further hindered the peace talks. In theory this solution would maintain peace in region while not compromising the identity of the Israeli state and fulfilling the Palestinian’s right for sovereignty. However, in reality this solution doesn't solve some of the most crucial issues of the conflict that have stopped Israel and Palestine from reaching a permanent agreement. There are a few main issues that are not addressed by the solution. Firstly, the border issue is will not be resolved due to the many Israeli settlements. If we implement the pre 1967 war borders which are often the basis of the solution, many around 10% of Israelis will live in Palestinian territory. Even if appropriate land swaps are carried out to compensate for the settlement the issue is not solved as in the future these settlements will most likely continue to develop further taking over West Bank territory and potentially creating noncontiguous areas under Palestinian control. The control and influence over Jerusalem is also another concern. The city holds religious significance for both countries and they both claim it as their capital. Furthermore, Israelis and Palestinians have settled on both sides, and holy sites are on top of another, making a division of the city nearly impossible. The solution is further complicated when you take into consideration the many Palestinian refugees that were forced to flee their homeland during 1948-1967. There are roughly 5 million of them who have a “right of return”. This is a big problem for Israel as it threatens its status as the only Jewish majority state. Lastly the Israeli government claims that a fully sovereign Palestinian state is a threat to the national security of Israel because of the many terrorist attacks that have happened. According to the government they can only ensure that Hamas doesn't come to power if they maintain a military presence in the West Bank which is incompatible with the ideas of the two-state solution (Gendler). Because of these many difficulties the two-state solution is no longer the answer to the Israel- Palestine conflict.   
The alternative solution to the two state is the one state which is based on the idea that “every person who lives between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea would have equal individual rights, regardless of their ethnic or religious identity”. This solution would either be based on a binational state where the two ethnicities also have communal rights, or it would be solely based on equal rights for all residents. The capital of this state would be Jerusalem and the power would be divided among Palestinian and Israeli leadership. While the one state solution resolves some of the issues mentioned in the two-state solution namely the right of return of the Palestinian refugees and the many Israeli settlements in the West Bank it is still far from the ideal solution given the circumstances. The main issue with this solution is linked to the importance of maintaining Israel’s identity as a Jewish majority state. If the two states were to combine into one and true equality was assumed, the new state would not have many of the laws that favor Jews, which grant Israel status as a safe haven for Jews. Due to the rapid growth of the Arab population the one state solution would risk creating a Jewish minority which would come with its own implications to social cohesiveness. This issue is further worsened if you consider the over 5 million displaced Palestinians with a right to return, which would make the difference between the Israeli and Arab population even steeper. Ultimately all of this would completely counteract the Zionist ideologies behind the creation of Israel and would be impossible to implement. As David Unger wrote,“At best, a bi-national Palestine would offer the conditions Jews now enjoy in the United States - a Jewish minority living in peace, prosperity, and harmony with its non-Jewish neighbors. At worst, it would reproduce conditions resembling those of pre-1939 Poland.” Other than the issues connected with Israels identity the one state solution would also present problems in the political organization of the country, the government secrets of Isarael and Palestine, the socioeconomic terms and the wealth distribution of the country. Because of these many issues the one state solution is no better than the two state and would not deal with all of the intricacies of the conflict.  
Despite being the most mainstream and backed solutions, the two state and one state solution have not established a proper framework which effectively addresses the main issues of the conflict. Because of the failure of previous agreements, the confederacy solution has started to gain some traction in the debate. A confederation while not seeking to replace the two-state solution, aims to alter it in order to solve some of the most prominent issues of the conflict which are left unresolved by the true two state solution. The “Holy Land Confederation” is a proposed solution, based on the model of the EU made by a joint Palestinian-Israeli group led by Yosi Beilin, former Israeli minister of justice and veteran peace negotiator Hiba Husseini. The first issue that it seeks to address is the issue of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  To solve this, it is proposed that there be equal land swaps. Palestine would allow the Israeli settlers to continue living in the territory, and Israel would give and equal amount of land from its territory to Palestine. So the 2.25% of West Bank territory that would be annexed by Israel, would compensate by an equal amount of territory which is currently under Israeli sovereignty. Both Israelis and Palestinians would vote in their respective countries regardless of on which side of the border they live, but they would also be entitled to vote in municipal elections which would ensure the equality of all permanent residents regardless of nationality. In addition, this framework also seeks to solve another prominent issue, that of the displaced Palestinian refugees during 1948-1967 by either giving them an opportunity to return according to the framework set out for permanent residence or by settling them in the swapped land. A key difference between this solution and other solutions is that it places a significant importance on reconciliation and cooperation between the two parties. To achieve this, it envisions that all schools in the confederacy teach both Hebrew and Arabic and that all religious sites in the capital remain open to everyone. Furthermore, the confederacy would have joint multinational forces, early warning stations, and a joint Palestinian-Israeli situation room as well as meetings of both parties every 4 years to explore further liberalization and discuss border issues. In addition both of the states would adopt the same monetary unit and will be organized by multiple joint units controlling different sectors in the economy to ensure equality between the two states and in order to make the organization of the confederation easier.  
In conclusion, because of the complicated nature of the Israel- Palestine conflict peace cannot be achieved by a true one state or two state solution. To solve the problems of refugees, border disputes, economic and political organization while maintaining the Jewish state we must consider a confederacy. Through cooperation and reconciliation this solution aims to tackle this complicated issue on the basis of providing equality and a higher standard of living for all citizens regardless of on which side of the border they live. The one state solution and two state both fail at achieving these goals by either not maintaining the identity and the policies of the Jewish state that fulfill its goals of Zionism or by providing incomplete solutions for the political organization and the future of the Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlements. Therefore, the only plausible solution is a confederacy.