I'm not convinced a 2-state solution is in Israel's best interest because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the conflict. The issue isn't just about borders or security—it's about power, identity, and the reality of coexistence. A 2-state solution assumes that a Palestinian state can be created without addressing the structural imbalances that have defined the conflict for decades.

Consider the demographic reality: Israel is already a Jewish-majority state, and its security is tied to its Jewish identity. A Palestinian state would not just be a neighbor—it would be a state that has historically sought to erase or delegitimize Israel. That dynamic doesn’t just create tension; it creates existential risk.

Moreover, the idea that a Palestinian state would be “non-threatening” ignores the historical context of Palestinian nationalism and the unresolved issues of refugees, Jerusalem, and settlements. These aren’t just political sticking points—they’re existential for both sides.

A 2-state solution also ignores the growing influence of regional powers like Iran and the shifting dynamics of Middle Eastern politics. Israel’s security isn’t just about its own borders—it’s about the broader geopolitical landscape. A Palestinian state, especially one with strong ties to Iran or other hostile actors, could destabilize the entire region.

In short, the 2-state solution is a political fantasy that doesn’t account for the realities of power, identity, and regional politics. Israel’s best interest lies in a framework that ensures its long-term