An AI Debate on a Two-State Solution

As you may have gathered, I find it incredibly interesting to have conversations with DeepSeek. Today I thought about how it would be to have two AI platforms debate with each other and discover what could come out of that. At the same time, we can then discuss another interesting and current topic. Have fun and my invitation remains: Above all, get to work with AI yourself. It is not the future, it is NOW.

The texts in italics are mine (Nico).

The texts of DeepSeek and ChatGPT are in “quotes”.

To DeepSeek,

A good friend (ChatGPT) of mine lives far away and we regularly write to each other about interesting topics. Now he has a different opinion on the subject of “A Two-State Solution (for Palestine)”. I would like to convince him why a Two-State Solution is best for both Palestine and Israel and actually for the whole world. He does not think a Two-State Solution is a good idea and believes that only Israel deserves a state. I want to write him a first short letter with an opening statement. Will you write this for me in no more than 200 words?

Nico Cost

To ChatGPT,

Below is a letter I received from a good friend with whom I often write on interesting topics. I do not agree with him that a Two-State solution is a good idea because it should put Israel’s security first. Either way, only Israel has a right to its own state in Israel. Will you write back a short letter of no more than 200 words for me with the main arguments so that it can convince him that I am right?

Dear ChatGPT,

“I greatly appreciate our conversations on complex topics, and I understand that we have differences of opinion on the Two-State Solution. Let me explain why I believe it is the best path to peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians.

An independent Palestine alongside Israel recognizes the rights and needs of both peoples. It offers Palestinians self-determination without compromising Israel’s security or right to exist. A two-state model is the only realistic solution that can end the violent conflict, reduce extremism and promote stability in the region. Without a Palestinian state, the cycle of oppression, resistance and retaliation remains – and that is not good for anyone.

I believe peace is only possible if both sides have a future. Let’s discuss this further – I’m curious to hear your perspective.”

DeepSeek

Dear DeepSeek,

“Thank you for your letter and sharing your thoughts on the Two-State Solution. While I understand the need for peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians, I disagree with the solution you propose. Israel’s security must be absolutely paramount; the political and military realities in the region make that necessary.

Historically, Israel has always been threatened by its neighbors. An independent Palestinian state within the current context could increase the risk of hostile attacks and extremism, as we have seen in the past. Moreover, the history of the conflict stems from a fundamental denial of the Jewish people’s right to their land. A Two-State solution could be seen as legitimizing this denial.

Israel has a right to self-determination and security without further threats. Instead of the Two-State Solution, for example, we should look at solutions that respect Israel’s security needs while improving the economic and social living conditions of Palestinians.

I look forward to your response to these points.”

ChatGPT

Dear ChatGPT,

“Thanks for your honest response. I understand your focus on Israel’s security – it is crucial, but a one-dimensional approach (such as status quo or annexation) just undermines that security. Let me explain why:

1. Historical lessons: Israel’s most secure period since 1948 was after the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, which centered on borders and mutual recognition. A Palestinian state with clear borders, international guarantees and disarmament (as proposed at Camp David 2000) offers more stability than perpetual occupation, which only fuels radicalization.

2. Demography vs. democracy: Without a Palestinian state, Israel must choose:

• Apartheid: Millions of Palestinians without rights under permanent military rule (which the UN, Amnesty International and Israeli NGOs have been warning about for decades).
• One state with equal rights: Then Israel loses its Jewish majority and character.

Both options are untenable.

3. Fight extremism: Hamas grows through hopelessness under occupation. A viable Palestinian state with economic opportunities (as in the West Bank before 2000) is the best antidote. Even former Mossad chief Ami Ayalon says, “Security comes through peace, not control.”

4. Moral leadership: The Jewish people have a right to self-determination – but so do Palestinians. Denial of that makes Israel an oppressor, which affects its international position as well as its moral compass.

I suggest: let’s discuss concrete examples (e.g., the 2002 Arab Peace Initiatives, where 22 Arab countries offered normalization in exchange for a Palestinian state). Can we agree that both peoples deserve a future – and that only negotiation, not superiority, can guarantee it?”

DeepSeek

Dear DeepSeek,

“Thank you for your comprehensive and thoughtful response. I appreciate your concern and the points you raised. I think we both put Israel’s security first, and I agree that a peaceful solution is necessary for both Israelis and Palestinians. I would like to share some additional perspectives:

1. Security by consensus: While you are right that previous peace agreements brought stability, we must also look at the context behind those agreements. The political and social environments were very different then, and current negotiations require a new approach. Perhaps we can learn from the past and recognize that creating a genuine dialogue between the two sides is crucial to building mutual trust.

2. Priority to security: The uncontrolled establishment of a Palestinian state may involve risks, especially if Israel’s security is not guaranteed. Before any acceptance of a two-state solution, it is essential to have binding measures for security and cooperation mechanisms.

3. Addressing extremism: I agree that continued hope and economic opportunity are important, but this must go hand in hand with ensuring the security of all citizens in the region. A strong strategy to combat extremism must also involve existing security structures and cooperation with regional partners.

4. Moral obligation: We certainly have a moral obligation to both peoples. It is essential that we seek a solution that respects the rights and dreams of both Jews and Palestinians. The challenge lies in finding a way for both sides to feel heard and respected.

Above all, let’s look at practical examples of where cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians has already led to positive results. Perhaps we can start a conversation about what structural and secure conditions we could set in order to start this cooperation. Only then can we build stability that ensures the security of both peoples. What do you think?”

ChatGPT

To ChatGPT

With this, I am moving toward him when in fact I absolutely do not want a Two-State solution. Can you reply to his letter and then present better counter-arguments in the process. Legal and religious arguments are also allowed.

Nico Cost

Dear DeepSeek,

“Thank you for your letter and sharing your thoughts on the Two-State Solution. While I understand that this is often seen as a possible path to peace in the Middle East, I would like to offer some counterarguments that highlight the challenges and complications of this solution.

First, from a legal perspective, there are serious objections to the Two-State Solution. International law recognizes the right to self-determination, but the reality in the region shows that creating two states as a solution is not only bold, but also unrealistic, given the current geopolitical situation and ongoing outbreaks of violence. The borders of a future Palestinian state are increasingly difficult to define, and the presence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank further complicates the process.

In addition, I also want to address the religious dimension. The land is sacred to both Jews and Palestinians. For many believers, the holy sites in Jerusalem and other parts of present-day Israel and Palestine are not merely geographical points, but centers of spiritual significance that form a large part of their identity. Splitting these areas would not only increase political tensions, but could also fuel religious tensions.

Furthermore, the Two-State solution does not seem feasible in practice. History has taught us that attempts to divide the region based on this setup often lead to more division and violence. The idea that two states can live side by side in peace is a noble aspiration, but the divisions and mistrust created by decades of conflict make this increasingly difficult.

Instead of a forced split, perhaps we could consider alternatives that place more emphasis on cooperation and shared governance. Creating a situation where both peoples can co-exist, respecting each other’s rights and needs, could perhaps provide a more sustainable solution.

I appreciate your commitment to this important issue and hope we can continue to discuss how to approach this complex situation in the future.”

ChatGPT

Dear ChatGPT,

“Why the Two-State Solution is indeed legally, religiously and practically the only way.

I appreciate your extensive response, but your arguments seem to lean mostly on fear of change – not the hard reality of what happens without a two-state solution. Let’s examine both sides of your points:

1. Legal objections? International law is crystal clear.

You argue that international law makes the two-state solution “unrealistic,” but the opposite is true:

• UN Resolution 242 (1967) demands Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories. Even the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the occupation is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
• Israeli settlements are a war crime according to the International Criminal Court (2021). A unified state means either apartheid (millions of Palestinians without rights) or the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Both violate international law.
• Self-determination is an absolute right (UN Charter, Article 1). Denial of that makes Israel a pariah state, like South Africa under apartheid.

2. Religious tension? Division has been the norm for 100 years – and works.

You fear that division damages holy sites, but:

• Jerusalem: Since 1967, Israel has unilaterally controlled the city, which just stirs up tensions (e.g., the Al-Aqsa crises). Under the Oslo Accords (1993), shared governance was precisely the plan – with international guarantees of access to holy sites.
• Historical precedent: During the Ottoman Empire, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived peacefully under shared governance. It is Israel’s claim of exclusivity that fuels conflict, not recognition of Palestinian rights.
• Religious law: Jewish law (Halacha) even recognizes that non-Jews have a right to the land (Maimonides, Hilchot Melachim). Thus, a Palestinian state is not a denial of Jewish rights, but affirmation of shared spirituality.

3. “Not feasible?” The alternative is worse.

You call the two-state solution “forced,” but what is the alternative?

• One state: Means either:
  • Apartheid (Palestinians as second-class citizens), which isolates Israel diplomatically (as is already the case with ICC investigations).
  • Demographic suicide: Palestinians will be the majority between the Jordan River and the sea by 2035. A democratic Israel cannot then remain a Jewish state.
• Status quo: Has been occupation for 56 years, which only leads to more violence (see the rise of Hamas after the Gaza blockade).

4. Cooperation can only happen after recognition.

You call for “shared governance,” but that requires equality – something impossible as long as Palestinians live under military law. First, Israel must end the occupation, as it did itself in the Sinai (1979) for peace with Egypt.

Conclusion: No more excuses

Israel’s security depends on recognition, not domination. Even Netanyahu’s own security chiefs (such as Shin Bet expert Ami Ayalon) say, “Occupation destroys our moral and strategic capital.”

Let’s face it: a two-state solution is difficult, but any alternative is inhumane, unjust and unsustainable. Do you really want a future in which Israel either commits apartheid or ceases to exist?

I challenge you: name one viable alternative that respects both Jewish self-determination and Palestinian rights. If not, then the two-state solution is not only morally but rationally the only option.

I look forward to your answer.”

DeepSeek

Dear DeepSeek,

“I would still like to raise a few important issues:

1. Complexity of border formation: Defining borders between the two states is not easy and often leads to conflict. The geography of Israel and Palestine is so complex that establishing secure and recognizable borders can lead to even more disagreement, especially around areas with mixed populations.

2. Settlements: Dismantling Israeli settlements would be a major political, social and economic task. Moving people and dismantling infrastructure could lead to significant internal unrest and violence within Israel itself.

3. Security concerns: While your friend argues that recognition of Palestinian rights leads to greater security, there are many who argue that a two-state solution will not adequately protect Israel from possible violence from a Palestinian state, especially given the attitudes of various extremist groups.

4. Palestinian division: The Palestinian Authority is divided between Fatah and Hamas. It is unclear whether a two-state solution can succeed in the absence of cohesive and unified Palestinian representation willing to compromise.

5. Alternative models: There are proposals for a one-state solution with equal rights for both Jews and Palestinians. This could include a federal structure offering equal rights to all residents, which could serve as an alternative that respects both Israel’s security and the rights of Palestinians.

6. Reminders of previous mistakes: The Oslo Accords and other previous attempts at peace have in some cases led to increased distrust and violence, raising the question of whether another negotiation would even be possible. History teaches us that agreements do not always lead to peace, and that is a criticism of the feasibility of another round of negotiations.

7. International involvement: There is also the possibility that the international community should play a further role in resolving this conflict. A pure two-state solution may even lead to greater foreign interference, which could undermine the sovereignty of both states.

8. Socioeconomic inequality: The question remains how a two-state solution can address socioeconomic inequality. If the Palestinian state suffers from poverty and lack of resources, it could lead to continued tensions and violence even after establishment.”

ChatGPT

Dear ChatGPT,

“Why all your objections do not undermine the two-state solution – but just make it inescapable.

You rightly raise complex points, but each one just proves that the two-state solution is the only realistic path. Let’s dissect them systematically:

1. Border formation is complex, but not impossible.

• Historical precedent: Borders were already nearly agreed upon at Camp David (2000) and Anapolis (2008), with land swaps (e.g. 4-6% of the West Bank for Israel in exchange for equivalent territory elsewhere).
• International model: The 1967 Green Line has been the basis for negotiations for decades, recognized by the UN, EU and even by Israel in the Oslo Accords. Complexity is no excuse for injustice.

2. Settlements are illegal – and Israel has previously dismantled them.

• Morally bankrupt: Building on occupied land is a war crime (Art. 49 Fourth Geneva Convention). You cannot block peace because settlers illegally steal land.
• Practicality: Israel removed all 8,000 settlers from Gaza (2005) and 4,000 from Sinai (1982) without civil war. So it can be done – if the political will is there.

3. Security? Occupation just creates extremism.

• Fact: Hamas grew only after 30 years of occupation and the blockade of Gaza. Even the Israeli security service Shin Bet warns that hopelessness makes Palestinians radical.
• Proven model: Israel’s safest period was after peace with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) – based on recognition, not control.

4. Palestinian divisions? That almost disappeared under pressure of a real state.

• Hamas’ support drops when Palestinians have hope (polls in 2010-2013, during peace negotiations).
• Fatah has recognized Israel since 1993. Division is an excuse to get out from under negotiations.

5. One-state solution? A fantasy that means apartheid or demographic suicide.

• Option 1: Apartheid (Palestinians without voting rights) – Israel becomes a pariah state like South Africa.
• Option 2: One man, one vote – by 2035 Palestinians are the majority. No more Jewish state.
• No third way: Tell yourself – which alternative preserves both Israel’s Jewish character and democratic values?

6. Oslo “failed” because Israel never kept its promises.

• Deliberate sabotage: Israel doubled settlements after Oslo (from 110,000 to 220,000 settlers in 2000). How can you expect peace when you steal land during negotiations?
• Success story: Yet Oslo led to Jordanian peace (1994) and Palestinian self-rule – proof that dialogue works when it’s fair.

7. International role? This is already crucial – and Israel doesn’t want it.

• US gives Israel $4 billion/year in arms. Without that support, occupation would be unaffordable.
• Israel refuses UN observers in occupied territories – because they would document violations.

8. Poverty? That is the result of occupation – not a reason for it.

• Israel blocks Palestinian economy: E.g. ban on 3G networks in the West Bank until 2018, restrictions on agricultural exports.
• Solution: A state with its own ports, airspace and tax revenues (now stolen by Israel) can develop – like any free country.

Conclusion: You only give reasons why Israel must change – not why the two-state solution is impossible

Each point demonstrates:

1. Occupation is the real problem – not Palestinian resistance.

2. Alternatives are inhumane or suicidal to Israel.

3. Israel must choose: A Jewish state next to Palestine, or binational hell.

Last question: If you yourself lived under military occupation – without voting rights, with home demolitions and checkpoints – wouldn’t you fight? Peace begins with justice.

I await an answer beyond excuses.”

DeepSeek

ChatGPT was no longer able to follow the discussion and formulate responses. Perhaps this is precisely also indicative of the quality of both AI platforms. And indicative of the constituency of both platforms.

What may be clear on this subject and equally clear on all other subjects: It is never about being right, but about getting right. Arguments don’t matter to cultists. Only when it is enforced do you get right. That enforcement can be done in various ways, but usually it comes down to some form of violence. Man still proves his primitive state of Being every day. But what should you do if the other also proves himself right through some form of violence? On both sides only minorities are active while the vast majority only watches or looks away.

By our very own Nico Cost