Q: Is a two-state solution good for Israel?

 

Q: Is a two-state solution good for Israel?  

A: No. A two-state “solution” is, in practice, a strategic and existential danger to Israel, packaged as a diplomatic formula. It would carve up the already tiny Jewish homeland, divide Jerusalem, and place an unstable, Iran-backed Arab entity on Israel’s most sensitive frontiers. For Israel, that is not a path to peace; it is a blueprint for chronic insecurity and potential catastrophe.

Q: Why do so many governments and organizations still support a two-state solution?  

A: Many Western governments, NGOs, and international bodies repeat “two states” as a kind of ritual slogan. It allows them to claim they are “doing something for peace” while avoiding the hard reality of Jihadist ideology, chronic incitement, and Iran’s regional strategy. This narrative is driven heavily by the left, which allies with Iran’s network of global Jihad and political Islam, and by diplomatic inertia: it has been on autopilot for decades, so elites keep saying it even when events on the ground have disproved it again and again.

Q: Didn’t Israel already try something similar when it left Gaza?  

A: Yes, and the Gaza withdrawal is the most powerful real-world test of the “land for peace” concept. In 2005, Israel evacuated every Jew from Gaza, dismantled communities, and left behind functioning infrastructure, including greenhouses that could have jump-started a peaceful local economy. In return, Israel received Hamas rule, tens of thousands of rockets, a network of Terror Infrastructure beneath civilian areas, and finally the October 7 massacre—an atrocity of rape, torture, burning, kidnapping, and mass murder of Jews. Gaza proved that “land for peace” in this context becomes land for terror, not coexistence.

Q: How would a two-state arrangement affect Israel’s security?  

A: A two-state setup in Judea and Samaria would be a security nightmare. The area dominates Israel’s narrow central corridor. From certain ridges, you can literally overlook Ben-Gurion Airport and the entire coastal plain where most Israelis live. If an Iran-backed entity controlled this high ground, it could threaten Israel’s main airport with even light mortar fire, paralyze the country’s international access, and place Tel Aviv and surrounding cities under constant threat. No serious military strategist can ignore how dangerously exposed Israel would become.

Q: Do the Arab settlers’ leadership and movements truly accept a Jewish state alongside them?  

A: Their mainstream rhetoric and doctrine overwhelmingly say no. While some spokespeople talk about “two states” in English for Western audiences, the internal messages in Arabic—through schools, media, mosques (which function not only as religious sites but as political-military bases), and official institutions—are different. They glorify Jihad, “martyrdom,” and the dream of eliminating Jewish sovereignty “from the river to the sea.” They do not present Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Netanya as legitimate parts of a Jewish homeland; they frame all of Israel as “stolen land.” This is not the mindset of a movement preparing for peaceful coexistence; it is the mindset of a long-term war for total replacement.

Q: Isn’t a two-state solution about “two states for two peoples”?  

A: In theory, that is the slogan. In practice, the dominant Arab Muslim political culture in this conflict does not accept the Jewish people as a legitimate nation with indigenous Jewish National Rights in the Land of Israel. Instead, Jews are portrayed as temporary “colonizers” with no authentic roots in Jerusalem, Judea, or Samaria. The goal, as openly declared by Muslim Arab Jihad Militants and often echoed in the broader discourse, is not a small state living peacefully alongside Israel, but a single Arab-Islamic state replacing Israel. There is no authentic acceptance of permanent Jewish sovereignty; that is why every concession by Israel is banked as a step toward further demands, not genuine compromise.

Q: Wouldn’t a two-state solution reduce terrorism?  

A: All evidence points in the opposite direction. Terrorism has historically increased after territorial withdrawals or major concessions: the post-Oslo terror wave, the eruption of the Muslim Arab Insurgency, and the escalation from Gaza after the 2005 evacuation are textbook examples. When Jihadist organizations and their patrons in Iran see that violence and incitement are rewarded with territory, money, and global sympathy, they are encouraged to escalate, not stop. A two-state configuration that weakens Israel’s strategic depth would likely embolden Iran’s network and their proxies, making Israel both more vulnerable and more frequently attacked.

Q: Isn’t opposing a two-state solution the same as opposing peace?  

A: No. Opposing a fantasy that would endanger millions of Jews is not opposing peace; it is recognizing reality. Authentic peace requires that the other side accept Israel as the legitimate, permanent Jewish nation-state, end incitement, end the glorification of Jihad and Jew-killing, and dismantle Iran-backed terror structures. Until that happens, drawing new lines on a map and calling it “peace” is deceptive. Israel, as a democratic state that operates under the rule of law, has repeatedly shown willingness to compromise when real partners and real security exist. What it cannot do is commit national suicide to satisfy Western slogans.

Q: How do Iran and its proxies fit into the two-state debate?  

A: Iran uses Arab Muslim proxies like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other Iranian Proxy Forces as tools in its broader war against the West and against Israel. A two-state structure that creates a weak, unstable, armed entity on Israel’s borders would be a gift to Tehran. It would offer Iran yet another forward operating base essential for rockets, terror cells, and international pressure campaigns against Israel. Any “state” that cannot or will not dismantle these forces becomes, in reality, an extension of Iran’s regional project, not a partner for peace.

Q: If two states are not the answer, what is a safer framework for Israel’s future?  

A: Any realistic framework must start with this: the Jewish people have permanent, legitimate sovereignty in their ancestral homeland, including Jerusalem and the strategic areas of Judea and Samaria. Israel must retain the capacity to defend itself by itself, which requires control over key security corridors and high ground. The Muslim Arab Insurgency and Iran’s proxy network must be decisively weakened or dismantled, not rewarded with more territory. Over time, if the Arab side genuinely reforms its political culture—ending systemic antisemitism, Jihad glorification, and its absolute refusal of Jewish nationhood—different forms of autonomy and coexistence can be explored. But these must be built on security, truth, and mutual recognition, not on illusions that endanger Jewish lives.

Q: So what should people mean when they say they “support peace”?  

A: To genuinely support peace is to support Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish nation-state in secure, defensible borders, to insist on the disarming and delegitimizing of terror organizations, to confront Iran’s network of Jihadist proxies, and to challenge the propaganda that portrays Arab Muslim Terrorists as “resistance fighters” instead of what they are. It means rejecting nice-sounding diplomatic formulas that have repeatedly failed and instead backing arrangements that protect life, uphold genuine human rights, and reflect the hard lessons of the past decades. For Israel, that means saying clearly: a two-state “solution,” as currently envisioned, is not a path to peace but a road to deeper war.