Who opposes israili two state solution

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, several key actors oppose the Israeli two-state solution, with Israeli leadership being the most prominent opponent. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly stated his opposition, declaring "There will be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan River" ^{[1] [2]}. This position represents a clear rejection of the fundamental premise of the two-state solution, which would establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The opposition extends beyond Netanyahu to include other Israeli political figures. Opposition leader Yair Lapid also opposes the two-state solution ^[1], indicating that resistance to Palestinian statehood spans across Israel's political spectrum. The analyses suggest that the current Israeli government's policies and actions, including continued military operations in Gaza and Netanyahu's defiant speeches at international forums like the UN General Assembly, demonstrate practical opposition to peaceful resolution through a two-state framework ^[3].

The United States, particularly under the Trump administration, has also shown opposition to the two-state solution. The U.S. has warned of possible repercussions for countries taking measures against Israel and has blocked Palestinian officials from attending the General Assembly ^{[1] [4]}. Both the United States and Israel voted against the 'New York Declaration' which called for a two-state solution, and boycotted a conference co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia that promoted this approach ^[5].

The opposition manifests through various diplomatic and political actions. Israel has threatened unilateral action in response to international recognition of Palestinian statehood ^[4], while the U.S. has used its diplomatic influence to obstruct Palestinian participation in international forums. These actions suggest a coordinated effort to prevent the advancement of two-state solution initiatives on the international stage.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant gaps in understanding the full scope of international positions on this issue. While the sources clearly identify Israeli and American opposition, they provide limited information about which countries and international actors support the two-state solution. The mention of France and Saudi Arabia co-hosting a conference suggests there is substantial international support for Palestinian statehood, but the extent and influence of this support remains unclear from the provided analyses.

The sources also lack detailed information about Palestinian perspectives on the two-state solution. While one source mentions that Palestinian statehood recognition brings "a 'glimmer of hope' for some Palestinians" ^[1], there's insufficient analysis of Palestinian leadership positions, internal debates, or conditions they might place on a two-state arrangement.

Regional Arab state positions are notably absent from the analyses. Given the significant role that countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf states play in Middle Eastern diplomacy, their stances on the two-state solution would provide crucial context for understanding the broader regional dynamics.

The analyses also fail to address historical evolution of positions on the two-state solution. Understanding how Israeli, American, and Palestinian positions have shifted over time would provide valuable context for current opposition patterns.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question "who opposes Israeli two state solution" contains a subtle but significant framing issue. The phrasing suggests that the two-state solution is inherently "Israeli," when in fact it is an international diplomatic framework supported by numerous countries and international organizations. This framing could inadvertently legitimize the idea that Israel has primary ownership over this diplomatic solution.

The question's simplicity may also oversimplify a complex geopolitical issue. Opposition to the two-state solution exists on multiple levels and for various reasons - some oppose it because they favor a one-state solution, others because they support different territorial arrangements, and still others due to timing or implementation concerns. The binary framing of "who opposes" doesn't capture these nuanced positions.

Additionally, the analyses suggest that opposition isn't monolithic even within opposing parties. The mention that Israeli policy is "divided into two main camps" with neither offering "a realistic path forward" ^[6] indicates that opposition may be more complex than simple rejection, potentially including those who support the concept but oppose specific implementations or timing.

The question also doesn't acknowledge that positions on the two-state solution can be tactical rather than ideological, with some actors opposing it as a negotiating strategy rather than as a fundamental rejection of Palestinian statehood.