For a generation, the promotion of a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a core pillar of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
But ahead of a major United Nations conference on how to advance that solution, some are asking if Washington is eyeing a change.
On June 10, 2025, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, stated in an interview to Bloomberg that he opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state at this time, noting that “unless there are some significant things that happen that change the [Palestinian] culture, there is no room for it.” He added that those changes “are not likely to occur in our lifetime.”
Asked if the establishment of a Palestinian state is still the goal of U.S. policy, Huckabee replied, “I don’t think so.” He went on to mull the carving out of land from a Muslim-majority country for Palestinians, rather than a future homeland for them coming from the area currently controlled by Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
The comments by Huckabee, a Donald Trump political appointee and ardent pro-Israel Evangelical Christian, have been interpreted as a signal that the Trump administration is potentially breaking away from long-standing U.S. policy. Adding credence to that view has been the administration’s antipathy toward the U.N. conference on the two-state solution, due to convene in New York from June 17-20.
As a 25-year veteran of the Israeli Foreign Service who served in the embassy in Washington twice, I know that such a turn in U.S. policy is possible. But it is not without difficulties, as the Trump administration will need to present an alternative plan for resolving the conflict.
President Trump has recently shown he is prepared to break with long-standing U.S policies, as was the case in his decision to lift sanctions on Syria and meet with the country’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa – to the great surprise of many. But calling it quits on the two-state solution is different – it could lead to the further destabilization of an already unstable region.
For the past quarter-century, U.S. policy – endorsed by Republican and Democratic administrations alike – has advocated for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the advancement of a two-state solution. In practical terms, this means the establishment of a Palestinian state encompassing the Palestinian people currently living in the occupied West Bank and possibly the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, alongside the state of Israel.
The idea that these two coexisting states could provide a permanent end to the conflict formally came to prominence in June 2002 as part of the Road Map to Peace for the Middle East Conflict announced by U.S. President George W. Bush and adopted by the International Quartet on the Middle East, comprising the U.S., Russia, European Union and the U.N.
U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama took active steps to advance the two-state solution, including direct involvement in negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
And in his first term, Trump presented his own plan, which he called the “Deal of the Century.” With the subheading “a realistic two-state solution,” it laid out a path to Palestinian statehood if the Palestinians’ political leadership met a set of benchmarks.
President Joe Biden continuously raised the two-state solution as the most viable way to resolve the conflict – even after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas and the war subsequently launched by Israel in Gaza.
But for years, international observers have worried about the viability of the two-state solution in the face of opposition from right-wing Israeli governments, continued Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank, and weak and divided Palestinian leadership and polity. Yet the alternatives – including continued Israeli occupation, a one-state solution or a confederation with Jordan – are viewed as less viable options.
For these reasons, the two-state solution remains the most acceptable formula to much of the international community.
Member states of the European Union, Arab countries, as well as most countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa, have been advocating for decades for the implementation of the two-state solution and have incorporated it into their foreign policies.
The upcoming U.N. conference in New York, to be chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, intends to underscore the importance of getting to a two-state outcome.
While there is no real expectation the conference will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state anytime soon, it aims to galvanize international support for the concept of Palestinian statehood.
Huckabee’s comments were made in the context of the U.N. conference. And they are of no real surprise: Huckabee’s personal views on the subject are very well known.
But the former Arkansas governor is now the United States’ representative in Israel, and that gives his words weight.
While there was wide speculation that the comments reflect a change in U.S. policy, the Trump administration did not rush to endorse them – but nor did it distance itself from Huckabee’s words.
As the war in Gaza continues, there is a growing realization among leading Republicans as well as mainstream Democrats in the U.S. that talk of advancing the two-state solution is premature if not unrealistic at present, especially taking into account the stern opposition of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s nationalist-religious government.
But that does not suggest the Trump administration has necessarily steered away from this option for the future.
Rather, it could be that the U.S. administration has calculated that as it devotes efforts to ending the war in Gaza, at least temporarily, and securing the release of the remaining Israeli hostages being held, talk of a two-state solution now is counterproductive to its efforts.
And Huckabee’s comments may be aimed more at those delegates shortly arriving in New York for the U.N. summit, serving as a warning rather than a notice of intent.
In a cable sent from the State Department to U.S. embassies around the world, American diplomats were reportedly asked to discourage countries from participating in the conference – not because the U.S. is “disowning” the two-state solution, but rather because the administration believes the conference may undermine its current efforts.
The cable stated that the U.S. opposes any steps that unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, which it feels “adds significant legal and political obstacles to the eventual resolution of the conflict.”
The wording was not coincidental. U.S. policy has been consistent over the years in stating that any resolution of the conflict should be reached through negotiations between the main parties – the Israeli government and Palestinian representatives – which need to refrain from taking any unilateral steps.
Notwithstanding all this, Huckabee’s comments were not made in a vacuum.
While the U.S. administration has not formally moved away from the two-state formula, there is a growing number of conservatives in Congress, as well as in the Washington think-tank community, that see an opportunity to bring a change in U.S. policy in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks.
In his first term, Trump was relatively tepid in his approach. So far in his second term, he has given little sign of where he stands on the issue. Huckabee’s comments, in this regard, may have been a subtle nudge – with the ambassador getting ahead of where he hopes policy is heading.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Dan Arbell, American University
Read more: A brief history of the US-Israel ‘special relationship’ shows how connections have shifted since long before the 1948 founding of the Jewish state A two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians might actually be closer than ever 30 years after Arafat-Rabin handshake, clear flaws in Oslo Accords doomed peace talks to failure
Dan Arbell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
