![Israel must continue to be able to deter Hezbollah, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar stressed on Wednesday, speaking amid efforts to reach a ceasefire with Iran's Lebanese terrorist proxy. "We need to keep the freedom to act if there will be violations. And we will have to act in time, before the problem will grow," the minister told a gathering of nearly 100 foreign ambassadors in Jerusalem, the Times of Israel reported. A deal to end more than a year of fighting on the northern border must be durable, Sa'ar said, saying Jerusalem “would like to reach an agreement that will stand the test of time." He added that a ceasefire would be an "opportunity" for Lebanon to regain its sovereignty after the Israeli military severely degraded the Iranian-backed group in recent months. He called for the Lebanese Armed Forces to be strengthened and urged the international community to invest more in the economically devastated country, which is drowning in debt following years of mismanagement and corruption. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz also emphasized on Wednesday the necessity for Jerusalem to be able to act against any Hezbollah threats that may arise after a ceasefire deal is implemented. “The condition for any political settlement in Lebanon is the preservation of the intelligence capability and the preservation of the [IDF’s] right to act and protect the citizens of Israel from Hezbollah,” Katz said. Meanwhile, U.S. special envoy Amos Hochstein remained in Beirut for a second day on Wednesday to discuss "technical details" of an American ceasefire proposal with Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who heads the Hezbollah-allied Amal movement. President Joe Biden's point man in the Land of the Cedars announced he would travel to Israel on Wednesday night, speaking after he made "additional progress" in a second meeting with Berri. Hochstein was scheduled to meet with Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer shortly after his arrival, followed by a tête-à-tête with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the following day. “The meeting today built on the meeting yesterday, and made additional progress,” Hochstein said. “So I will travel from here in a couple hours to Israel to try to bring this to a close if we can.” The Biden envoy added that he will work with the incoming Trump administration on ceasefire efforts, saying that he has kept the president-elect's transition team informed of progress. Hochstein described as "very productive" his meetings with Lebanese officials on Tuesday. “We have a real opportunity to end the conflict, and now is the moment to decide. We are committed to doing everything we can to work with Lebanon and Israel to end this conflict,” Hochstein said at a press conference on Tuesday. Hochstein also met on Tuesday with Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati, and he was scheduled to meet with Lebanese Armed Forces commander Gen. Joseph Aoun. Mikati emphasized that Lebanon’s primary objectives are achieving a ceasefire and safeguarding its sovereignty. He highlighted the need to implement international resolutions and bolster the Lebanese Armed Forces in the southern part of the country. Lebanon delivered its written response to the latest U.S. proposal on Monday. According to Ali Hassan Khalil, an aide to Berri, the response included “comments” that were “presented in a positive atmosphere.” He did not provide details on the nature of the comments, saying only that they “affirm the precise adherence to [U.N. Security Council] Resolution 1701 with all its provisions,” according to Reuters. Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem said in a speech on Wednesday that the terrorist group had "read the ceasefire proposal. "We have our comments, and Nabih Berri has comments, and ours and the Lebanese government's comments are, Inshallah ['God willing'], identical," Qassem said. "We have decided not to discuss these ceasefire proposals or our comments in the media. All I will say is that Israeli is trying to obtain through negotiations what it couldn't through war." The terrorist leader vowed to “continue our efforts on the ground, whether the negotiations succeed or not. “We are confronting a savage enemy, and we will remain on the ground, no matter the cost, as we will also increase the cost for the enemy. We are facing Israeli human monsters supported by American human monsters,” threatened Qassem. Disarm and retreat Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Second Lebanon War, stipulated that Hezbollah must disarm and retreat north of the Litani River, but was never enforced. The Litani lies some 20 miles from the Israel-Lebanon border. Its enforcement, along with Israeli freedom of operation in Lebanon should Hezbollah violate the terms of a ceasefire agreement, are the key sticking points in the current negotiations. Netanyahu emphasized during a speech in the Knesset plenum on Monday that Israel will not allow Hezbollah to “return to the state it was in on Oct. 6, 2023. “We will be required, in order to ensure our security in the north, to systematically carry out operations—not only against Hezbollah’s attacks, which could come. Even if there is a ceasefire, nobody can guarantee it will hold. So it’s not only our reaction, a preventive reaction, a reaction in the wake of attack but also the capacity to prevent Hezbollah from strengthening,” he said. Hezbollah has launched some 16,000 rockets, missiles and drones from Lebanon at Israel since joining the war in support of Hamas on Oct. 8, 2023, a day after the Gaza-based terrorist group’s massacre in southern Israel. More than 60,000 residents of northern Israel remain internally displaced due to the ongoing rocket and drone attacks from Lebanon. Seventy-six people in northern Israel have been killed by Hezbollah cross-border rocket, missile and drone attacks since the start of the war, including 31 soldiers and six foreign citizens, according to the latest data provided by the Prime Minister’s Office, updated on Sunday. In addition, 729 people have been wounded, including 497 civilians and 232 soldiers. Of these, 29 civilians and 37 soldiers were severely injured; 63 civilians and 38 soldiers were moderately injured and 405 civilians and 157 soldiers were lightly injured. Hezbollah’s leadership has been left in tatters following a series of targeted killings by Israel, including that of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut on Sept. 27. This was preceded by Israeli sabotage of Hezbollah communication devices that killed 39 people and wounded more than 3,400 members of the terrorist group. Israel has been waging a devastating aerial campaign against Hezbollah throughout Lebanon, including its stronghold of Dahieh south of Beirut. According to Israeli estimates, the terrorist group has lost most of its arsenal to the ongoing strikes. Then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said in late October that Hezbollah had lost an estimated 80%-plus of its long-range rockets since the start of the war. Israel also continues to battle Hamas terrorists in Gaza. The terrorist group still holds 101 hostages in the Strip, 97 of whom were kidnapped on Oct. 7. Many of the captives are believed to be dead. Brazil summit Meanwhile, G20 leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro for a summit put out a joint statement on Monday calling for “comprehensive” ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon. The leaders of the world’s biggest economies called for U.S. proposals to end fighting in Gaza and free the hostages, and one for Lebanon “that enables citizens to return safely to their homes on both sides of the Blue Line.” The 13-point U.S. proposal presented to Lebanese officials on Nov. 14 includes a 60-day truce, during which Lebanon would redeploy its troops along the border. The proposal also calls for Moscow to prevent Hezbollah from resupplying itself via Syrian land routes. Hezbollah would retreat north of the Litani River, with the border area then being under control of the Lebanese Armed Forces, overseen by the United States and Britain. Israeli officials are emphasizing, however, that the Israel Defense Forces must retain freedom of operation in Lebanon to thwart attempts by Hezbollah to violate the agreement and rearm and reestablish itself. A senior Israeli diplomatic official told Israel Hayom on Saturday that the IDF will retain operational freedom to respond to any security threats from across the northern border, regardless of any diplomatic arrangements. However, a source close to Hezbollah told The Washington Post that the group’s “condition for progress remains clear: Israel must be prohibited from conducting operations within Lebanese territory.” Berri emphasized at the time that any ceasefire agreement must not include the ability for Israel to attack by land, sea or air, Channel 12 reported. “Otherwise, what’s the purpose of an agreement?” he remarked. Another sticking point is Lebanon’s objection to the United Kingdom and Germany monitoring the implementation of U.N. Resolution 1701. Beirut reportedly favors the United States and France. If the ceasefire efforts fail, there are plans in the works to expand ground operations in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told the Post. Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer discussed the proposal with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump during a visit to his Florida estate earlier this month, as well as with senior Biden administration officials in Washington. Dermer also traveled to Russia to discuss the ceasefire proposal. Tehran is telling its Lebanese terrorist proxy Hezbollah that it supports ending the war against Israel, The New York Times reported over the weekend. Ali Larijani, senior adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, met with senior Lebanese officials in Beirut on Nov. 15 to discuss the matter. Two Iranians affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps told the Times that Larijani conveyed messages to Hezbollah from Khamenei that he supported the end of the war and that the regime would assist with rebuilding the terrorist group’s forces and recovering from the war.](https://jewishwebsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Gideon-Saar-1320x880-2-218x150.jpg "Sa’ar: Israel must be free to act against Hezbollah truce violations")
The two-state solution, long heralded as the only viable path to peace between Israelis and Palestinians, has been the cornerstone of international diplomacy for decades.
Yet, despite countless negotiations, summits and accords, the dream of peaceful coexistence between two sovereign states has remained elusive.
The harsh reality is that the two-state solution is not just impractical, it is a dangerous delusion. If pursued, it will only bring more terror and instability to the region.
A better and more appropriate name should be the Two-State Delusion. Former Ambassador to Israel David Friedman has coined the phrase “One Jewish State” to define exactly what Israel can and should look like. An entire new organization is now focused around this phrase because it understands that a two-state solution is not practical.
The Historical Context: Rejection Over and Over
Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, the idea of a two-state solution has been proposed multiple times, only to be met with consistent rejection by the Palestinian leadership.
The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 was the first such proposal, offering Jews and Arabs their own states. While the Jewish leadership accepted the plan, the Arab states and Palestinian leaders categorically rejected it, launching a war aimed at the destruction of the nascent Jewish state.
This pattern of rejection has been repeated numerous times.
In 2000, during the Camp David Summit, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Palestinian Authority Yasser Arafat an incredible deal that would have created a Palestinian state in Gaza and most of Judea and Samaria, with a shared capital in Jerusalem.
Arafat’s response was not just a rejection, it was the launch of the second intifada, a wave of brutal terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.
In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered Arafat’s successor Mahmoud Abbas a similar deal, which was also turned down.
These rejections underscore a fundamental truth: The conflict is not about land or borders. It is about the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to accept the existence of a Jewish state in any form. The Palestinian national movement, as it has existed since its inception, is rooted in the goal of eliminating Israel and the Jewish people, not in establishing a state that exists alongside it.
The Oslo Accords: A Failed Experiment
The Oslo Accords, signed in the 1990s, were supposed to pave the way for a two-state solution. The accords were based on the premise that mutual recognition and negotiations would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state and peace between the two peoples. Instead, Oslo brought more violence, more terrorism, and more bloodshed.
Following the signing of the Oslo Accords, Israel made significant territorial concessions and recognized the P.A. as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In return, the P.A. was supposed to renounce violence and commit to peace.
Yet what followed was a wave of terror that cost the lives of over a thousand Israelis. The P.A., rather than building the infrastructure of a future state, used the areas under its control to launch attacks against Israel, indoctrinate its population with hatred and glorify terrorism.
This same old story never changes.
The failure of the Oslo process was not due to a lack of effort or goodwill on Israel’s part. It failed because the Palestinian leadership never truly embraced the concept of peace with a Jewish state. To them, the negotiations were not a path to peace but a tactic to gain concessions while continuing the struggle against Israel.
The Abraham Accords: A New Path Forward
In stark contrast to the failures of Oslo and the two-state delusion, the Abraham Accords represented a revolutionary shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy.
These agreements, brokered by the United States, have led to the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.
The success of the Abraham Accords lies in their pragmatic approach, which is rooted in mutual economic interests, security cooperation and a shared concern about the threat posed by Iran.
The Abraham Accords demonstrate that peace in the Middle East does not require the creation of a Palestinian state. Instead, it can be achieved through direct engagement between Israel and other Arab nations, bypassing the Palestinian leadership that has repeatedly shown itself to be an obstacle to peace.
The Accords have already yielded tangible benefits, including increased trade, tourism and security cooperation between Israel and its new Arab partners.
Moreover, the Abraham Accords have the potential to reshape the broader Middle East. By creating a new alliance of moderate Arab states that recognize the benefits of partnership with Israel, the Accords isolate the radical elements that continue to promote violence and rejectionism. This new dynamic offers a more promising path to stability and prosperity in the region than the tired and failed pursuit of a two-state solution.
The Core Issue: A Conflict Over Existence, Not Land
The failure of the two-state solution is not a flop of diplomacy or negotiation tactics; it is a failure to address the core issue at the heart of the conflict. This is not a territorial dispute that can be resolved by drawing new borders or creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The conflict is fundamentally about the existence of Israel as a Jewish state and the refusal of many Palestinians to accept that reality.
The Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has been driven by the goal of eliminating Israel. This is evident in the rhetoric of Palestinian leaders, the content of their educational system and the glorification of terrorists who have attacked Israeli civilians. For the Palestinian leadership, the two-state solution is not an end goal; it is a means to an end—the eventual dismantling of Israel.
This is why every offer of statehood has been rejected. Accepting a Palestinian state alongside Israel would require a fundamental shift in Palestinian national identity, one that is currently defined by its opposition to Israel’s existence. Until this changes, any attempt to impose a two-state solution will be doomed to failure.
Moving Beyond the Delusion
The two-state solution has become a sacred cow in international diplomacy, but pursuing this mirage has not brought peace; it has only perpetuated conflict and suffering for both Israelis and Palestinians.
It is time for the international community to abandon the failed paradigm of the two-state solution and embrace a new approach that prioritizes security, stability and cooperation over the pursuit of an illusory peace.
Peace will not come through the creation of a Palestinian state that will likely become another base for terrorism against Israel. It will come through the strengthening of alliances, the promotion of economic development and the marginalization of those who continue to reject Israel’s right to exist.
Only by moving beyond the two-state delusion can we hope to achieve a lasting and just peace in the Middle East.