A two-state solution? Maybe the best way to ‘ensure’ another slaughter
August 5, 2025 by Bruce S. Ticker
Read on for article
Perhaps the harshest obstacle toward a two-state solution revolves around the Palestinians’ ability to conduct international affairs, which presumably includes Israel, as listed in The New York Times.
Bruce Ticker
Hamas, the terror group which seized control of Gaza 18 years ago, played out its concept of “conducting international affairs” on Oct. 7, 2023, by invading southern Israel, slaughtering 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping 251 more, many of them still being held hostage.
Israelis and many of the nation’s supporters lost their enthusiasm for a two-state solution since one could threaten Israel’s existence or continue its sense of insecurity.
This does not necessarily mean that Israel will never accept a two-state solution, but for now, the existing government opposes it, and most Israelis, Diaspora Jews and other supporters are probably in no mood to consider the creation of a Palestinian state. Yet important Western countries are moving toward recognising a Palestinian state as the be-all and end-all of the 76-year-old conflict.
Australian Sen. Penny Wong echoes lobbyists for a two-state solution when she says, as quoted in The Australian, “If we want long-term peace and security in the Middle East, for both Israelis and Palestinians alike, then we need to deal with the issue of a Palestinian state. That is the best way to ensure stability and peace for both Israelis and Palestinians alike.”
Is she sure she does not mean it is the best way to “ensure” another massacre of Israelis?
“The question of recognizing Palestinian statehood,” Sen. Michaelia Cash said earlier, “should come at the end of the peace negotiation process not at the start or during it. The Coalition has been consistently clear that there can be no recognition of a Palestinian state with Hamas still in control of Gaza, and Hamas can have no role in governing a Palestinian state.”
Australia is among 15 countries whose foreign ministers signed a joint declaration that calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and a political process leading to Palestinian statehood under a revamped Palestinian Authority. Other foreign ministers represent New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and France.
Last Tuesday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said his nation would recognise a Palestinian state if Israel does not reach a cease-fire agreement by September. France announced the week before that it will officially acknowledge Palestinian statehood next month, according to The Times.
Israel’s critics are understandably worried about civilian deaths and starvation in Gaza, but it will help if they would more often mention the plight of Israeli hostages, the ongoing grief of the families and coping with the mental and physical scars since Oct. 7. I lost it completely for Israel’s critics when I recognized that their crusade is rigidly one-sided.
Since leaders of Britain, France, et al have hurdled the most agonising and harrowing steps toward a two-state solution – that of spouting off their big mouths – it should be easy for them to implement their ideas. Surely they can present a detailed plan to make a two-state solution work. They can tell us how a Palestinian state will be governed when most Arab states are run by autocrats and crooked exploiters.
They can explain how a two-state solution will make all problems disappear when they have not bothered to consider other options. To wit: Egypt annexing Gaza and Jordan part of the West Bank, though that has its own impediments. Or Turkey taking Gaza under its sympathetic wings.
They can explain how to dislodge Hamas and other terrorist groups from the equation and reform the Palestinian Authority when Hamas is demanding that a Palestinian state come first, to be followed by disarmament. They might also convince Israelis how they can trust Hamas as its Oct. 7 assault violated a ceasefire that was enacted to end a previous confrontation.
Personally, I concluded long ago that a two-state solution will not work for these and other reasons. Terrorists cannot make it more direct – on Oct. 7 – as to what they want. I do not see how they would reach a reasonable agreement with Israel.
The Times lists four elements needed for statehood, which are “a permanent population, defined territorial boundaries, a government and an ability to conduct international affairs.”
The tactics of Hamas have been plainly hostile to its closest neighbour, Israel, and Egypt would allow few Gazans into its country. Israelis must be guaranteed security with any agreement they make with Hamas or anyone else.
Israel has been attacked in big and small ways or threatened every day since its inception in 1948, and its leaders have made it clear that it must stop. They have managed to weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran, and block weapon transports from Iran through Syria.
As long as Hamas survives, they endanger Israel. They are committed to destroying Israel and will make it impossible for anyone to control Gaza. They will not consent to any agreement that would end their reign in Gaza, even if they are allowed safe passage to Qatar or some other neutral country. I hope I am wrong.
After New Zealand’s foreign minister signed the 15-nation declaration, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon assured Israel that there will be no conditional recognition of a Palestinian state. “We need to put pressure on Israel to get humanitarian assistance unfettered, at scale, at volume, into Gaza,” he said, as quoted in a J-Wire news report.
New Zealand’s bow to reality was emphasised in Parliament when Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said specific conditions must be met for a Palestinian state. “We want to know that what we are recognizing is a legitimate, representative, viable political entity,” he said.
Those preconditions are evidence of representative governance, a commitment to non-violence and security guarantees for Israel, he said.
Though joining the declaration might be ill-advised, at least New Zealand’s leaders have the right idea on a long-term basis. Let’s keep it that way.
Claims to understand Israel, are frequently naïve and uninformed. The Hamas narrative has never been about borders—it has always been about the annihilation of Jews. This is clearly stated in the Hamas Covenant and was tragically demonstrated in the barbaric attacks of October 7, which included the mass slaughter of civilians—babies, women, entire families—often with religious justification from Gaza-based imams.
This is not a local or nationalistic conflict. It is a global and ideological war driven by a radical Islamic agenda. Ironically, many of the atrocities committed by Hamas even violate Islamic rules of war. As long as this genocidal ideology persists, peaceful coexistence is a fantasy—especially from the perspective of Israelis still reeling from 10/7.
if you have 2 state . It cuts humas out as they only except a one state solution