What is Gavin Newsom's stance on the two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

1. Newsom’s publicly stated goals: ceasefire, humanitarian relief, and “enduring peace”

In an open letter to California’s Muslim, Palestinian American, and Arab American communities, Newsom said he supports President Biden’s call for an immediate ceasefire tied to humanitarian relief and hostage release and added that “it is time to work in earnest toward an enduring peace that will furnish the lasting security, autonomy, and freedom that the Palestinians and the Israeli people both deserve” — language that emphasizes mutual security and Palestinian autonomy ^[1].

2. Clear denunciation of Hamas and visits to Israel — political positioning matters

Newsom has “unequivocally denounced” Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack and has repeatedly stressed the need to eliminate Hamas as an obstacle to peace; he also visited Israel soon after the attacks and met survivors and officials, signaling strong political solidarity with Israeli victims ^{[2] [3] [5]}. That posture complicates how his statements about Palestinian rights are perceived by different constituencies ^[5].

3. On the evidence: sources don’t record an explicit “two‑state” endorsement

None of the supplied materials include Newsom saying the phrase “two‑state solution” or an explicit, programmatic endorsement of that diplomatic framework. His references to “security, autonomy, and freedom” for Palestinians and Israelis imply support for arrangements that could include a two‑state outcome, but the record in these sources stops short of an unequivocal naming of that solution ^{[1] [4]}.

4. How journalists and advocacy groups interpret his stance

Coverage in CalMatters and the Los Angeles Times frames Newsom as seeking a balance: calling for a ceasefire and acknowledging Gaza’s suffering while also aligning with some pro‑Israel positions and condemning Hamas — leading to critiques from activists who want him to press Israel harder and praise from groups focused on Israeli security ^{[4] [6]}. A California Jewish advocacy group (JPAC) emphasized his denunciation of Hamas and noted his comments that Hamas’s rule is “not compatible with a lasting peace” ^[5].

5. Political constraints and audience signals

Analysts in the reporting note Newsom faces political tradeoffs: meeting with both Jewish and Arab/Muslim community leaders, sending medical aid to Gaza after aiding Israel, and tailoring messaging to avoid contradicting federal positions while addressing local constituencies who demand stronger language for Palestinian civilians ^{[7] [4]}. Critics argue he moves politically rather than morally; supporters say he is balancing complex realities ^{[4] [7]}.

6. What Newsom has done versus what he has said

Beyond statements, Newsom’s actions include sending humanitarian aid and publicly visiting Israel — concrete steps that align with a twin emphasis on civilian relief and support for Israeli victims ^{[3] [1]}. Critics point to the timing and sequencing of aid deliveries and argue that actions have not always matched the urgency of his rhetoric ^[4].

7. Takeaways and reporting limits

Available sources show Newsom advocates for ceasefire, humanitarian access, ending Hamas rule as necessary for peace, and durable rights for Palestinians and Israelis, but they do not record him explicitly using the diplomatic label “two‑state solution.” Observers interpret his language as consistent with two‑state principles (security and autonomy) while also emphasizing Israeli security; that dual emphasis explains why different constituencies read his stance differently ^{[1] [5] [4]}.

Limitations: these conclusions are drawn only from the provided materials; additional statements or speeches not included here may explicitly endorse or reject the two‑state formulation — available sources do not mention any such explicit endorsement.