The Guardian's Critique of the Green Party's Rejection of a Two-State Solution
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/editorial. "The Guardian view on the Green party and Palestine: rejecting two states is no shortcut to peace | Editorial | The Guardian." October 6, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The Guardian argues that the Green party was wrong to abandon support for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict in favor of a one-state model, because most Palestinians themselves still prefer two states, the international community overwhelmingly backs that framework, and a one-state outcome looks even harder to achieve. The editorial also warns that the way this policy was passed—by a tiny fraction of members, with language that alienates Jewish members who see Zionism as self-determination rather than domination—risks real harm to Jewish party members and to the party's own cohesion and credibility.
Conclusion
The Green party's decision to abandon the two-state framework in favor of a one-state solution is a mistake that neither reflects political reality nor offers a genuine shortcut to peace, and the party's handling of the policy and related antisemitism row risks internal division and reputational harm.
Premises
- The two-state solution remains the overwhelming international diplomatic consensus, as reflected in the 2002 UN Security Council resolution and the 2024 UN General Assembly vote (142-10) for the New York Declaration.
- Polling in Gaza and the West Bank shows a majority of Palestinians support a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, while only about 10% support a single democratic state.
- The European Greens, including the centrist German party, disagree with the English and Welsh Greens' new one-state direction, viewing it as incompatible with previously agreed positions.
- The policy's definition of Zionism as inherently about 'exclusion and/or domination' conflicts with how most Jewish people understand Zionism (as Jewish self-determination), causing real and understandable anger within the Jewish community.
- The vote was passed by a small fraction of the party's membership (about 200 votes, less than one-thousandth of the total), raising questions about its legitimacy as representing the party's broader view.
- The policy's rejection of safeguards against disciplining members affiliated with Zionist Jewish institutions creates legal risk, as lawyers warn Zionist beliefs may be protected under equality legislation.
- A one-state solution currently seems even more remote and impractical than the stalled two-state process, given that one system already enforces unequal treatment of Palestinians.
Assumptions
- International consensus and majority public opinion among the affected populations are reliable guides to what constitutes a viable or legitimate peace framework.
- A political party's foreign policy positions should align with mainstream international and expert consensus rather than diverge based on moral or ideological grounds.
- The distinction between opposing 'Zionism as domination' and opposing Jewish self-determination can be cleanly maintained, and conflating the two is itself a problem.
- Internal party democratic processes (a vote by a small subset of members) should carry weight only if representative of the broader membership.
- Reassuring Jewish members and maintaining internal party cohesion is compatible with, and perhaps a precondition for, credibly advocating for Palestinian freedom.