Judea and Samaria: Beyond the Two-State Illusion, a Path to Enduring Peace
For years, the international community has treated the two-state solution — the concept of creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel — as if it’s the only acceptable path forward, repeating it endlessly in global forums, diplomatic circles, and media narratives.
But recent developments have rendered this idea not only outdated but increasingly dangerous. As Israel confronts intensifying security threats and regional instability, it is time to move beyond this illusion and toward a framework rooted in security, history, and practical realities on the ground — particularly in Judea and Samaria.
Israel Needs a Stable Partner
The violent events of October 7, 2023, marked a turning point in Israel’s national consciousness. Hamas’s brutal assault on Israeli civilians shattered any remaining illusions about the supposed benefits of territorial withdrawal or appeasement. Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005 was intended to promote peace, yet it became a platform for terrorism. Gaza is now a heavily militarized enclave ruled by extremists. No Israeli leader is willing to repeat the same mistake by creating another hostile entity in Judea and Samaria, which lie directly adjacent to Israel’s major population centers.
The strategic value of Judea and Samaria is not just about geography. It is about survival. The region’s highlands overlook central Israel, including Ben-Gurion Airport and the coastal cities. Control over this territory is essential for Israel’s defense doctrine. It is a matter of protecting civilians, not expanding borders. Calls to relinquish this land ignore Israel’s legitimate security needs and fail to account for the chaos that would likely follow any such withdrawal.
Moreover, the two-state model presupposes the existence of a stable and responsible Palestinian partner. That partner does not exist. The Palestinian Authority is fragmented, corrupt, and increasingly irrelevant. It lacks public legitimacy, effective governance, and control over large portions of the territory it is supposed to manage. Meanwhile, radical groups operate freely in Palestinian cities like Jenin and Nablus, launching attacks on Israeli civilians. The idea that a viable, peaceful Palestinian state could emerge under current conditions is not a policy position — it is wishful thinking.
Abject Failure
This month, the Israeli Knesset sent a clear signal that the country is ready to rethink the old paradigm. In a symbolic but significant move, the legislature passed a nonbinding resolution calling for the full application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. While the resolution does not yet carry legal force, it reflects a growing consensus within Israeli society that these territories are not bargaining chips, but integral parts of the Jewish homeland. The vote was not just a gesture of ideology — it was a statement of strategic necessity. The Jordan Valley, in particular, is a critical defensive buffer against eastern threats. The application of sovereignty would formalize what is already a de facto reality: a long-standing Israeli presence grounded in security and historical identity.
Of course, this move drew predictable condemnation from Palestinian leaders and certain international bodies, who claim it undermines peace prospects. But these critics overlook a simple truth: the two-state solution has already failed. It failed because it was based on unrealistic assumptions about Palestinian leadership, intentions, and capabilities. It failed because it ignored the profound historical connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, especially the heartland of Judea and Samaria. And it failed because it imposed foreign expectations on a region governed by a far more complex set of realities.
The humanitarian situation in Palestinian territories, especially Gaza, is undeniably dire. But blaming Israel for that suffering ignores the central role of Hamas in perpetuating violence and prioritizing weapons over welfare. The Palestinian Authority, for its part, has spent more time vilifying Israel in international forums than building hospitals, infrastructure, or jobs for its people. The result is economic collapse, social unrest, and deepening radicalization. A two-state solution will not solve these crises. It will only mask them temporarily while creating new dangers for Israel.
A New Way
Rather than cling to failed paradigms, the international community should support new models of governance that prioritize coexistence, not separation. There are other ways to provide Palestinians with local autonomy without compromising Israel’s vital security needs. Some Israeli and Palestinian thinkers have proposed confederation-style arrangements, while others advocate for expanded municipal self-governance. These proposals may differ in form, but they share one critical principle: they reject the idea that peace must come through dividing the land and abandoning security.
Israel has demonstrated, time and again, a willingness to make peace. It signed agreements with Egypt and Jordan, it engaged in painful withdrawals from territories, and it extended numerous offers to the Palestinians — all of which were either rejected or answered with violence. The Abraham Accords further proved that peace in the Middle East does not depend on the creation of a Palestinian state. It depends on mutual recognition, regional cooperation, and the understanding that Israel is here to stay.
The future of Judea and Samaria must reflect these realities. It must be guided by security, history, and a firm commitment to protecting Israeli lives. The recent Knesset vote is not the end of the conversation — it is the beginning of a long-overdue reassessment. A peace built on illusions cannot endure. A peace rooted in truth just might.
Amine Ayoub is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco.