Forget the Two-State Solution. It’s Time for a Three-State Confusion

For decades, the Middle East peace process has been the world’s most durable performance art installation—equal parts tragicomedy and interpretive dance. We’ve had summits, ceasefires, and more “historic” handshakes than a Davos buffet line. But amid all the declarations, deadlines, and T.V. footage, one idea continues to haunt diplomatic cocktail parties like a cursed vision board: the Two-State Solution.

This vision, so thoroughly abstracted from reality, is now a kind of sacred relic—respected precisely because it never has to work. And so, in the grand tradition of doubling down on failure, we present the inevitable next step in peacemaking logic:

[https://www.jordannews.jo/Section-20/Middle-East/John-Bolton-Proposes-Three-State-Solution-as-an-Alternative-to-the-Two-State-Solution-for-the-Palestinian-Issue-39389]

The Three-State Confusion™

Why stop at two states when you can have three—possibly four, if you include the United Nations’ ability to issue strongly worded letters?

The so-called “Three-State Solution” proposes a charming retro fix:

• Gaza returns to Egypt, which sighs deeply.
  
• The West Bank goes to Jordan, which immediately checks its spam folder for the notification.
  
• And Israel, already struggling with its own boundaries—both geographic and moral—stays exactly where it is.
  

This is not a solution. It’s a nostalgic rehash of the pre-1967 map, when everyone was unhappy, but at least they were unhappily managed by different governments.

Of course, Egypt wants Gaza back about as much as it wants another pyramid to maintain, and Jordan would rather import sand than sovereignty over the West Bank. But why let total opposition from all parties get in the way of a good policy paper?

Diplomacy as Performance Art

What we call “peace negotiations” now bear all the hallmarks of avant-garde theatre. Western envoys stage well-lit press conferences. NGOs roll out initiatives like Falafel for Coexistence and Drum Circles for Peace. High-level panels discuss border disputes over canapés and conflict-resolution kombucha.

Meanwhile, the actual people affected by the conflict are invited to attend “listening sessions” that never result in anyone actually listening. As a result, the peace process has become its own industry, complete with merch, TED Talks, and frequent flyer miles.

It’s not diplomacy—it’s dinner theatre with better catering.

Add a Dash of Techno-Utopian Madness

No satire of the peace process is complete without a cameo from Silicon Valley. Picture a pitch deck:

“Introducing Peac3Chain™—a blockchain-based ceasefire protocol that self-executes unless refreshed by quarterly peace tokens, mined using humanitarian intent and NFTs of olive trees.”

Or perhaps a start-up accelerator in Ramallah hosting PeaceHack 2025, where young visionaries code new borders in JavaScript while sipping conflict-free oat milk lattes.

Enter Trump Tower Gaza

In this universe, Trumpian real estate logic is the obvious next step. Why pursue justice when you can pursue “joint ventures”?

Imagine Trump Tower Gaza, with gold-plated checkpoints, a resort called The Peace Palace, and a casino where your winnings are taxed directly into the reconstruction fund. Each floor is dedicated to a different UN resolution. There’s even a rooftop bar called Oslo Accords Lounge—open only on alternating years.

It’s the kind of peace that comes with valet parking and branded hummus.

The Reality: Three Entities, Zero Consensus

Let’s be clear: the Three-State Confusion isn’t a hypothetical—it’s already here.

• Israel operates with the confidence of a tech monopoly.
  
• The Palestinian Authority administers the West Bank like a franchisee in an abandoned mall.
  
• Hamas rules Gaza as a theocratic island with intermittent electricity and a robust tunnel network.
  
  All three claim legitimacy. None agree on anything. And the only thing they consistently achieve is the resetting of negotiations back to square one every few years—usually just before an election or UN session.

A Modest Proposal for an Immodest Conflict

In recognition of decades of committed confusion, the international community should stop striving for resolution and start rewarding innovation in ambiguity.

Let’s create an annual Nobel Prize for Diplomatic Irony, with nominees including:

• The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement
  
• The U.S. Electoral College
  
• And of course, the Three-State Confusion, for services to perpetual negotiation
  

Also proposed: the United Nations Subcommittee for Perpetual Conflict Mediation (UNSPeC-Me™), which will meet biannually in Geneva, Dubai, or wherever has the best seafood buffet.

Conclusion: Confuse and Prosper

Maybe the real genius of the Middle East peace process isn’t about finding a solution—it’s about outlasting interest. The Three-State Confusion perfectly fits our moment: absurd, circular, and spectacularly unimplementable.

So let’s stop pretending to solve this. Let’s lean into lunacy. Award points for creativity. Applaud new acronyms. Launch another summit in a neutral country that doesn’t know where Gaza is.

Because in the end, if you can’t fix the conflict… you might as well franchise it.

Author’s Note: This piece is satire. Any resemblance to real peace plans, diplomats, or start-ups is purely coincidental, tragically accurate, and unlikely to be resolved before the next ceasefire expires.