For Israel, a Two-State Solution Is a Launchpad for Terror
The seductive call of “peace in our time” has repeatedly led American administrations — Republican and Democratic alike — onto the shoals of diplomatic delusion.
This coming week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in Washington to meet with President Trump to discuss a potential ceasefire agreement in Gaza. In advance of the prime minister’s visit, the leadership of Israel’s governing party made a significant, if not historic, statement.
Likud cabinet ministers, along with Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, have signed a petition urging the Israeli government to formally assert sovereignty over Judea and Samaria — what much of the world still refers to as the “West Bank.” This move sends a clear message: a two-state solution is no longer a viable basis for peace.
Israeli leaders are signaling what many have long believed — that the era of “land for peace” is over. The term “West Bank” originated with the 1947 U.N. partition plan and the Jordanian occupation that followed. Whether by design or default, the term downplays the land’s historical and strategic significance, evoking images of a barren strip of sand along the Jordan River. In reality, Judea and Samaria form the heart of Israel’s ancestral homeland — where nearly 80% of the Bible’s recorded events took place. The region also constitutes nearly one-quarter of Israel’s current land mass.
The October 7, 2023, Hamas-led massacre shattered any illusions that territorial concessions lead to peace. Gaza, the laboratory of the two-state solution, proved instead to be a launchpad for terror. Today, only 21% of Israelis support the creation of a Palestinian state — reflecting a dramatic erosion of trust in the two-state paradigm.
In conversations I’ve had with Israeli officials since that attack, formal sovereignty over Judea and Samaria was not an immediate priority. However, the geopolitical ground has shifted. Iran’s terror network has been significantly weakened. And with the potential to expand the Abraham Accords, there’s a real opportunity to reshape the region. But such normalization efforts with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others may hinge on Israeli concessions, particularly the creation of a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu may be immune to the enchantment of such diplomacy, but U.S. officials often are not. The seductive call of “peace in our time” has repeatedly led American administrations — Republican and Democratic alike — onto the shoals of diplomatic delusion. History should remind us: the Gaza disengagement, endorsed by the George W. Bush administration, did not bring stability. Instead, it birthed a terrorist regime.
Judea and Samaria are not only 24 times larger than Gaza but are embedded in the geographic and spiritual core of Israel. Surrendering this strategic depth would not foster peace — it would invite prolonged conflict and existential risk.
The United States should support Israel’s rightful claim to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. This is not only a matter of historical justice, but of national security— for Israel and for all who value stability in the Middle East. Failing to do so will perpetuate a f ailed status quo, embolden enemies of peace, and betray the very principles that have undergirded America’s strongest ally in the region.
