What does the Heritage Foundation say about a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine?
Executive summary
The Heritage Foundation, as voiced by its newly appointed Jerusalem-based senior research fellow Eugene Kontorovich, rejects the two-state solution as viable, framing it as a dangerous interim that would threaten Israel’s security and survival; Heritage-linked commentary argues past offers and Palestinian governance failures show statehood would enable an armed threat to Israel [1] [2]. Critics and many international actors disagree—the United Nations, Carnegie, The Elders and other analysts continue to endorse or propose variants of two-state or confederation models as the internationally agreed framework for resolving the conflict [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Heritage’s core claim: two states would imperil Israel
Heritage’s public-facing critique, as reported, centers on the argument that granting Palestinian statehood would create a sovereign entity capable of acquiring heavy weapons and posing an existential military threat to Israel; Eugene Kontorovich explicitly characterizes the two-state formulation as “not a solution” and an “interim step to the destruction of Israel” [1] [2].
2. Evidence Heritage cites: governance, terrorism, and past offers
Heritage-linked commentary marshals recent history to bolster its case: Hamas’s takeover of Gaza in 2007 and the October 7 attacks are cited as proof that Palestinian self-rule can lead to violent threats against Israel, and prior negotiations that allegedly “did not work” are invoked to argue that offers of statehood have failed to produce peace [1] [2].
3. Security mechanics: statehood, weapons, and tax/sovereignty arguments
A recurring factual point in Heritage commentary is institutional: without the current lack of full Palestinian sovereignty, Palestinians cannot freely purchase major conventional weapons on the international market, and statehood would remove that constraint—Heritage uses that technical linkage to argue a strategic downside to creating a Palestinian state [1] [2].
4. Who’s speaking for Heritage: an analyst versus an institutional policy paper
Reporting shows these positions are articulated by Kontorovich, Heritage’s international-based senior research fellow in Jerusalem; the pieces summarizing his views appear in outlets such as the Daily Signal, which published the Heritage-affiliated analysis [1] [2]. The sources in the provided set do not include a separate Heritage Foundation formal policymaking statement distinct from Kontorovich’s commentary, which is a limit of the available reporting [1] [2].
5. How Heritage’s stance fits into the broader debate
Heritage’s skepticism is one pole in a wider debate: major international institutions and many analysts still present a two-state outcome as the internationally agreed path forward, or advance modified two-state/confederation concepts intended to reconcile security and sovereignty, showing a clear alternative to Heritage’s assessment [3] [4] [5] [6].
6. Competing empirical claims and public opinion caveats
Heritage emphasizes security risks; other analysts emphasize political, humanitarian and legal grounds for a Palestinian state and point to international consensus and proposals for confederations or retooled two-state plans—additionally, polling cited by outside analysts suggests many Palestinians doubt the feasibility of two states or favor other outcomes, a fact that complicates assertions about what statehood would deliver [7] [8].
7. What the reporting does and does not show
The available reporting documents Heritage’s rejection of two-state ideas through Kontorovich’s commentary and links that view Hamas’s rule and prior negotiations as decisive evidence [1] [2]. The sources do not, in this set, provide an institutional Heritage Foundation white paper with detailed implementation alternatives or a comprehensive, methodologically sourced risk assessment—reporting therefore captures a clear position but not a full, independently verified Heritage policy dossier [1] [2].
8. Bottom line
The Heritage Foundation’s articulated position in the cited reporting is unambiguous: a two-state solution is not only unworkable but dangerous to Israel’s survival, grounded in arguments about Palestinian governance, terrorism and the security implications of sovereignty [1] [2]; this position, however, directly contradicts longstanding international frameworks and proposals that continue to endorse or refine a two-state or confederative approach as the preferred pathway to peace [3] [4] [5] [6].