The Two-State Delusion

The two-state solution has long been the sacred cow of international diplomacy—a seemingly noble vision of coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians that continues to animate policy papers, UN resolutions, and countless peace conferences. Yet after more than seven decades of failed negotiations, wars, uprisings, and ceaseless hostility, it is time to confront an uncomfortable truth: the two-state solution is not a roadmap to peace—it is a delusion that sustains conflict.

This conclusion is not born out of cynicism, but from a sober analysis of history, ideology, and lived experience. The belief that two sovereign states—Israel and Palestine—can exist side-by-side in harmony ignores the fundamental reality that the Palestinian leadership, particularly Hamas, has never accepted the legitimacy of a Jewish state. Their opposition is not rooted in borders or settlements; it is rooted in theology, history, and ideology.

From the rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan to the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000 and every failed ceasefire in between, Palestinian leaders have repeatedly demonstrated that their struggle is not for statehood, but for the reversal of Jewish sovereignty. Hamas’s charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. Its actions—from the October 7, 2023 massacre to the refusal to release hostages during the 2025 ceasefire—speak louder than any diplomatic platitude. Even the so-called moderate Palestinian Authority has glorified terrorists and rejected offers that would have given them nearly all the land they claim to seek.

But the core issue is not Hamas. While Hamas has not relinquished power in Gaza since being elected, it remains a legitimate representative of the will of many Palestinians there. If Hamas were to be dismantled tomorrow by external forces, it is likely the Palestinians would elect another group with similar goals and ideology. This is not a problem of leadership—it is a problem of societal indoctrination. From childhood, Palestinian youth are taught to hate Jews, to venerate martyrs, and to see Israel not as a neighbor but as an enemy to be destroyed. No matter who governs the Palestinians, this ingrained hostility ensures that the conflict will continue.

Moreover, attempts to grant Palestinians autonomy have proven disastrous. Gaza, from which Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2005, became a launchpad for rockets, tunnels, and relentless warfare. The West Bank, though relatively quieter, remains a hotbed of incitement, corruption, and radicalization. To assume that a Palestinian state would be a peaceful neighbor is to ignore everything we have learned.

It is time for a paradigm shift—one that prioritizes stability, dignity, and reality over romanticized illusions. The only path to lasting peace lies not in creating yet another failed Arab state, but in relocating Palestinians to Arab countries where they can rebuild their lives in peace, with the support of the international community.

This idea is not new, but it has always been politically radioactive. However, when approached with compassion, planning, and genuine concern for human dignity, relocation becomes a solution grounded in practicality rather than ideology. It acknowledges that peace is impossible as long as millions of Palestinians are kept in a state of perpetual grievance on Israel’s borders, indoctrinated to see Jews as enemies and martyrdom as the highest aspiration.

There are 22 Arab countries, many of which are vast in size and rich in resources. The Gulf states, in particular, rely heavily on foreign labor and possess the financial capacity to assist in such a humanitarian initiative. Palestinians, many of whom are educated and skilled, could make meaningful contributions to these economies. Jordan and Egypt, though less wealthy, could also absorb populations with financial support from wealthier neighbors, Israel, and global institutions.

This would not be forced expulsion, but voluntary resettlement with international guarantees and investment. Host countries could allow Palestinians to retain their Arab cultural heritage while integrating economically and socially. The goal is not to preserve a distinct Palestinian identity—because such an identity only emerged after 1948 in opposition to the creation of Israel—but to acknowledge their broader Arab identity, which they share seamlessly with their neighbors. Integration would not erase who they are, but rather, restore them to the broader Arab community in which they naturally belong.

Critics will argue that this abandons Palestinian national aspirations. But those aspirations have, for decades, been weaponized against peace. The idea of “return” has been used to keep Palestinians in refugee camps rather than allowing them to build futures. It is time to prioritize human lives over failed ideologies.

Israel, too, has a vested interest in promoting this solution. A neighbor committed to jihad is not a partner for peace. By supporting and funding relocation efforts, Israel could secure its borders, reduce its military burden, and take a significant step toward regional normalization. In addition, Israel should consider compensating Palestinians for their land, offering fair market value as part of a dignified relocation package. The financial cost of such compensation would be far less than the long-term expense of endless war, security operations, and international condemnation. Buying land for peace is not only just—it is economically sound.

To be clear, this proposal is not without challenges. It will require courage from Arab leaders, political will from Israel, and a shift in how the international community approaches the conflict. But it is a path grounded in reality, unlike the repeated failures of two-state diplomacy.

The time has come to stop indulging illusions and start building a future. One where Israelis live in security, and Palestinians live in dignity—not side by side in hostility, but apart in peace. Only then can the region begin to heal from the trauma of a hundred years of war.