In its implementation, the Two State Solution is resulting in more of a situation with one state and two connected disaster areas than of two true states living comfortably together side-by-side. Hence, the term "Two State Solution" is a misnomer. There would neither be a second state beyond Israel, nor is it a solution that has or will bring peace to either Jews or Muslims. The term and ideology is useful however for winning votes as spread by ignorant, overly pragmatic and deluded politicians in Israel and globally by way of pushing this untenable reality onto gullible voters who believe it to be possible, and then physically onto the land. In practice, the Two State Solution is not, can not, and thus will not occur. This essay expands upon this notion.

The "Two State Solution" (TSS) is a concept used as a focal point worldwide, including in Israel, to explain and attempt to resolve so-called ‘Arab grievances.’ This topic of ‘Arab grievances’ arises in many conversations whenever Israel is concerned, particularly when Muslims discuss politics with non-Muslims, even at the top-tiers of business including in oil trade. As Israel has to a large extent been expendable to the West when oil is on the agenda, these conversations often end up swaying toward the most Islamic perspectives. In this respect, views sympathetic to Israel are attacked.

If the TSS were to physically be implemented on the ground by way of border alterations and the evacuation of Jews from Judea and Samaria (which is in addition to the Jewish absence already in Gaza,) there would be neither peace in those areas, nor in Israel. Instead, Judea and Samaria would become a launchpad and staging ground for missile attacks and other aggressive actions into Jewish areas, in addition to becoming a war-weary and dysfunctional living area for its inhabitants. Already this process has occurred in Gaza with no good reason to suggest it won’t happen again in Judea and Samaria if “disengaged” in the same manner. Furthermore, there would in all likelihood be no new single Arab "Palestinian" state formed from the accretion of both these evacuated areas. By this, the institutions that one expects from a 21st century nation would neither be built, exist nor operate. As of today, about 3 years since Jewish disengagement from Gaza, the area is barely functional and rather a haven for terrorists hell-bent on murdering Israeli Jews and others. One might hope, pray and think something else would occur in Judea and Samaria in the same way something else was hoped for in Gaza, but the chances of it happening are basically nil. Any attempts at nation-building in Gaza have been subsumed into the momentum of its terrorist activities, and to blame Israel for this fact would entail adopting to a large degree the same anti-semitic, anti-Israeli mindset of Gaza’s leaders and of others elsewhere. Furthermore, grievances in Gaza and Judea and Samaria against Israel and its settlers are also misguided, as will be expanded upon.

As a result of Gaza’s evacuation of Jews via ex-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s 2005 Disengagement plan, this area has been made into a much more unlivable place practically-speaking for almost all its inhabitants than it ever was when it had a Jewish Israeli presence. This degradation began with the razing of Gush Gatif as a township by Gazan Arabs the moment its Jewish settlers were evicted by the IDF. Regarding grievances, if anything they have increased on both sides of Gaza’s border, not decreased. By this, neither Gaza nor Sderot and its surrounding areas live in peace. Disengagement in this regard has especially failed and its ideology by way of the TSS will continue to do so if further energized. Moreover, not even the prospect of a nation exists in Gaza, yet the space, assistance and resources have been made available for it to start. In fact just recently, a Palestinian poll showed that 40 percent of the residents of Hamas-ruled Gaza wish to emigrate, compared to 25 percent in Judea and Samaria. Gaza as a physical area was handed to the Palestinians on a platter, at that point, buildings and greenhouses were destroyed, with those same places then used to launch missiles against Jews beyond Gaza in Israel. This has become the most prevalent symbol for the nation of “Palestine.”

Nothing indicates Gaza improving beyond a predominantly militant run and hosting entity. If Jews were to disengage from Judea and Samaria too, the same situation would replicate but be amplified. To think that a Palestinian nation will be born from either or both of these areas beyond an entity that first and foremost seeks the utter destruction of Israel is incorrect. This is due to the fact that Abbas and Fatah are nowhere near powerful enough to overcome the forces of Jihad to make the utopian TSS become a reality. The bulk of the population in these areas quite possibly don’t want it to happen or can’t make it happen, let alone the militants and terrorists allowing it to happen. The areas themselves have little major historical significance to Arabs when compared to Jews whereby Israel was a Jewish kingdom during the temple periods for almost 1000 years and furthermore, Israel is the birthplace of Judaism.

If Jews were to be thrown out of Judea and Samaria as part of the TSS, the temptation by Arabs to shoot missiles out of it would be too high for any nullification whatsoever, especially since Tel Aviv and other highly populated predominantly Jewish areas are in range. The occurrences in Gaza are an early warning on a smaller scale of what would happen in Judea and Samaria were it to be evacuated of Jews by the IDF, and the IDF itself. In another scenario after such an evacuation, there would be a hudna (cessation of violence and rearming) in Judea and Samaria until Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Gaza (ie Hamas and Al Qaeda) were all ready to start an open war together as has been seen in Israel’s previous wars where it’s been ganged-up upon by Muslim states. One difficulty in altering this situation is that Mahmoud Abbas on a personal level is weak and it is unrealistic to expect him to significantly reduce the probability of these aforementioned scenarios from occurring. Lastly, as has been demonstrated in Lebanon, when it comes to preventing the arming of openly hostile groups to Israel in and around it, UN resolutions and the UN itself essentially works against Israel and its Jews consistently.

An emerging power in the Muslim world is that of Jihad, with Pan-Arabism on the decline even though Jihad has the effect of uniting Arabs. Jihad is physically pushed onto Israel via Iran and its regional proxies closer to Israel. In a TSS, the forces of Jihad will in all likelihood eventually physically spill into Israel, particularly with the help of Al Qaeda and other Jihadist groups residing in evactuated areas. Furthermore, Jihad in the Christian West is already influencing views with regards to the Israeli-Palestianian conflict, and where terrorist attacks too have been inflicted due to ‘Arab grievances.’

In Israel, an emerging power is that of religious Zionism whereby secular Zionism as represented by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is becoming increasingly impotent to counteract actions against it by Israel’s declared enemies. This is because secular Zionism is becoming increasingly left-wing due to Western influenced perspectives. For some of the left-wing mind, Israel is an enemy and a hindrance to that mindset’s own self-defeatedness. These forces are coming to a fray within Israel and the Jewish world in general, particularly with regards to controlling Israel’s settlers within Judea and Samaria. Specifically, those having and sympathetic to ‘Arab grievances’ and those with left-wing mindsets seek to have these Zionist settlers restricted, controlled, and as demanded in a recent protest in Tel Aviv, castrated. This anti-settler mentality includes Israel’s current secular and left-wing leadership.

In the West, the force of political correctness (PC) is on the rise with its one-world/multicultural/green/godless utopian outlook. Where the agenda of PC stands with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially the path of least resistance, that is, towards Muslims and against Israelis. Within the aforementioned priorities of the PC movement and given the West’s growing and vocal Muslim population centers, including at the UN, and its continued reliance on mid-east oil, it doesn’t make much practical sense for the West on the whole to support Israel and to a large extent Jews.

The Arabs in both Gaza and Judea and Samaria have been born and raised into much victimhood, and have experienced great suffering. However, this has more to do with Arafat and the societal path he and other Arab states have set in motion in these regions, including their failed 1967 war, rather than being the direct result of Israeli action or inaction in these regions. Unfortunately, a victim needs a villain to sustain itself, but in this regard Israel is completely innocent with regard to so-called ‘Arab grievances’ — its actions of force are in self-defense. Moreover, Arab countries have not absorbed Palestinians in the way they might have done due to the loss of the 1967 war. Israel may have won that war but it is not the villain that started it. Ultimately, if victimhood were being guauged, Israel would easily fair as highly as the Palestinians with Israel being on the receiving end of Palestinian attacks and intifadas for the past 60 since Israel’s current inception, in addition to withstanding about 6 Arab initiated, Arab-Israeli wars. And this victimhood would then expand even infinitely more so if Israel was seen as the center of 5000 years of Jewish grief.

Nowadays, hatred of Jews, including Islam’s innate anti-semitism is on the rise as has been demonstrated by Sderot’s missile-barraged chaos, the Mumbai tragedy, Iran’s militaristic aspirations and countless other places around the world both revealed and hidden. This hatred acts as a further barrier to peace in Gaza and Judea and Samaria. Here, for many Muslims, having Umma sovereignty over land inside Israel is not enough – satiating the desire to murder Jews both inside and outside of these areas they call Palestine takes on much greater importance than any Palestinian nation-building whatsoever. This is part of Arafat’s legacy too. Additionally, this hatred is indifferent to whether it leads to the destruction of the remaining parts of “Israel proper” or not, but with that being the most likely result. In fact, for many Muslims including Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Iran’s leaders, the murder of Jews by way of annihilating Israel has become the highest priority, a declared goal, a reason to live and a cause by which to suicide. Thus, it makes sense for these groups to promote the TSS, with it being viewed as a natural step closer to their desired outcome: no Jews and absolutely no Israel. Ironically, from this point-of-view, unless the TSS leads to the complete destruction of Israel and its Jews, then for them it is not really a final solution. Rather, one state, ideally Jew-free would be more of a "solution." This is why Abbas, and prior to him Arafat have rejected all final-status land-for-peace offers: land alone in the form of a Palestinian state won’t bring peace to the Muslim world and would more likely diffuse hatred and be a cause for humiliation, that is, to make peace with the "Zionist entity" instead of forcing it into complete submission.

Ex Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon had thought that by thrusting Arabs with sovereignty over Gaza, their grievances of not being able to live freely and unhindered in that area would subside and peace and nationhood would result. In practice, that dream has proven unrealistic and unattainable. Arabs fight very violently for power internally, and as Muslims will unite against Jews. Perhaps 20 years ago disengagement might have led to some change in Muslim attitudes in the “occupied territories,” but at that time globalization, oil, Iraq, 9/11, Jihad and Muslim immigration were not such a factor in making the matter so globally exposed and obsessed upon as it is now. Today, the direction to which the Israeli-Palestinian war would ideally proceed in the West’s eyes is becoming increasingly unanimous and idealistic: The Two State Solution. Given that the TSS is not a feasible working solution for most Muslims in the concerned areas, let alone Jews inside and outside of it, the ideology and its implementation is more of a savage Trojan horse for Israel. So far, it has resulted in a dysfunctional, dangerous and missile bearing Gaza and a chaotic and dangerous Sderot. Ashkelon and surrounding communities have also experienced unrelenting missile attacks. With Gazan Muslim terrorists fixated on revenge, it is they who throw the first punches against Israel. Except for murderous Jihadists, it makes no practical sense to adopt or pursue the TSS. The occupation has and does exist — but not by Israel — and for most on either side, the TSS in full swing would resolve nothing. Furthermore, the forces causing the countries around Israel to initiate the 1967 six-day war, and others, will not disappear if Israel returns to the lines of 1967. If Judea and Samaria is to be made safer today for both the Arabs and Jews living in it, then Israel’s rule-of-law must be fully applied and backed up by its police and IDF. Unfortunately, the prevalence of Shariah law would make even that challenging if not impossibe.

If the TSS and the destruction of Israel was viewed as a stepping stone for quelling a greater and possibly insatiable appetite for more power on the world stage by the aforementioned openly anti-Israeli Muslim groups, then it stands to reason that the West is justified in rejecting the TSS alongside Israel in order to counteract such intentions. This is because if Israel was annihilated or very seriously impaired as a result of the TSS, Muslim and not just Arab grievances too would then need assuaging through Western concessions. In any case, the TSS is nowhere near a solution for a safe Israel even if it is comparatively more of a solution for extreme Muslims, yet for them still being short of an ideal “final solution,” at least in terms of dealing with Jews and Israel. In the West, barring the fact that Israel is constantly focussed upon by influential groups, and that graphic violence in the middle east including in Israel attracts much media attention, whether the TSS is based on fallacy or not is relatively inconsequential to many people in many parts of the world: if Israel were to be destroyed or impaired as a result of the TSS or otherwise, many would be indifferent.

Western media generally takes the path of least resistance when reporting on matters concerning Israel. For many reporters, it is all too easy and convenient to show a sensationalized and seemingly logical viewpoint: 2 peoples + 2 states + 1 agreement = solution; but realistically, this equation is unfeasible and incorrect as has been explained. Furthermore, with crafty reporting, Muslims within Israel’s territories can be disconnected from the world’s other Muslims and also the Muslim states from whom they are supported, with these “Palestinians” portrayed as the underdogs against the disproportionate Israel. For the West and its agenda of Political Correctness, the challenge in helping the peace process is determining what is actually worth being correct about, and in particular, the ultimate correctness of the "Two State Solution" as a working scenario. Is it possible for it to be a stepping stone rather than a solution? Why do Jews assert claim on the holy land, now and in the past? While the desire to be correct is a noble goal, being able to argue from both sides of the correctness spectrum makes for the best debaters and eventually leads to the soundest conclusions. Moreover, in Britain, Muslim instigated terrorism is called “anti-Islamic behavior.” Britons could entertain the possibility that if this in fact were wrong and it was actually Islamic-sanctioned behavior, how would that realization affect policy both at home and abroad, including in Israel? In Israel and for Jews elsewhere, the challenge is to find one mind in order to overcome depending on the Two State Solution as a cure for the obstacles to peace and seeing it more as a disaster in-the-making.