No progress has been made on a two-state solution
Negotiations on a two-state solution have proven ineffective. It is time to change tact and explore one-state options.
< (2 of 3) Next argument >
When solving global conflicts, the best solution is the one that can quickly establish stability and guarantee civilian safety. Despite almost two decades of negotiations, a two-state solution has done neither. The region is as unstable as it has ever been and both Palestinians and Israelis continue to struggle with violent outbursts.
Negotiations for a two-state solution began in 1991 at the Madrid Peace Conference. In the proceeding 19 years, there has been virtually no progress and a solution to the conflict remains as elusive as ever. If a two-state solution was viable, it would have been implemented already. Therefore, it is high time the options for a one-state solution were explored to break the status quo.
A one-state solution would not overcome any of the major sticking points and would likely create many new ones. For example, under a one-state solution, neither Palestinian Arabs nor Israeli Jews would be granted a natural homeland. This is an integral part of Israeli identity.  Palestinians would also have major concerns. Even if there were assurances that they would have the same civil and political rights as Jews on paper, there would be concerns over their ability to exercise those rights. Palestinians make up just 20% of the population. They would almost certainly be subjected to an apartheid state with almost no political representation.
[P1] A solution to a conflict should quickly end violence and guarantee civilian safety. [P2] Negotiations for a two-state solution have achieved neither. [P3] A one-state solution is the only viable alternative. [P4] Therefore, all parties should pursue a one-state solution.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P3] A one-state solution is not a viable alternative. It does not address any of the core issues of the conflict.