The two-state delusion

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.