People carry a body identified by mourners as Hamas’ military wing commander Izz al-Din al-Haddad, who was killed in an Israeli strike on Friday, during a funeral, in Gaza City, May 16, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Dawoud Abu Alkas

For decades, world leaders have spoken about a two-state solution as though repeating the phrase often enough would eventually turn it into reality. It has become the default answer in diplomatic circles, repeated at international conferences and embedded in countless political statements. Yet slogans are not strategies, and history has a habit of exposing ideas that no longer fit reality.

The question that deserves far more attention is whether the conditions necessary for such a solution actually exist.

Israel has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to make painful concessions in the hope of achieving peace. The most significant example came in 2005, when Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Every Israeli community was dismantled. Thousands of Israeli citizens left their homes, many against their will. Israeli forces withdrew, creating an opportunity for Gaza to chart a different future.

The expectations were clear. Gaza had the potential to invest in its economy, develop infrastructure, attract international investment, and build institutions capable of governing responsibly. It could have become proof that territorial separation could lead to peaceful coexistence.

Instead, Hamas violently seized power in 2007. Gaza became a launching pad for terrorism, with years of rocket attacks directed at Israeli communities. That trajectory reached its horrific climax on October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists crossed the border and carried out the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

For Israelis, this history is not an abstract political debate. It is a lived experience.

Those who continue to advocate another major Israeli territorial withdrawal must confront an uncomfortable reality. Why should Israelis believe that repeating the same experiment in Judea and Samaria would produce a different outcome?

Geography makes this question even more urgent. Israel is an exceptionally small country, with its central population centers, transportation networks, airports, and economic infrastructure located within a narrow corridor. If hostile terrorist organizations were ever able to establish themselves in strategically important areas overlooking those population centers, the consequences could be catastrophic.

International guarantees may sound reassuring in diplomatic speeches, but they do not intercept rockets or stop terrorist infiltrations. When violence erupts, it is Israeli civilians who pay the price.

The conflict has never been solely about drawing borders. If that were true, decades of negotiations would already have produced peace. The deeper issue remains whether Israel’s existence as the national homeland of the Jewish people is fully accepted.

Any lasting agreement requires more than maps. It requires leadership willing to reject terrorism without qualification, educational systems that teach coexistence rather than hatred, institutions capable of responsible governance, and a clear acceptance that Israel is a permanent and legitimate state.

Without those foundations, creating another state risks creating another front line.

This does not mean rejecting peace. On the contrary, Israelis and Palestinians both deserve security, prosperity, and hope for future generations. But peace cannot be built on assumptions that have repeatedly been disproven by events on the ground.

The international community often evaluates the conflict from a comfortable distance. Diplomatic proposals can be discussed in conference rooms thousands of miles away. Israelis do not have that luxury. Every security decision carries immediate consequences for families living within range of rockets or terrorist attacks.

History should inform policy, not be ignored because it complicates preferred narratives.

The experience of Gaza fundamentally altered Israel’s security calculations. Any future proposal must begin by acknowledging that reality rather than pretending it never happened.

Perhaps circumstances will change one day. Political cultures can evolve, leadership can change, and trust can be rebuilt over time. If genuine coexistence, responsible governance, and an unequivocal rejection of terrorism become the defining characteristics of Palestinian leadership, new opportunities may emerge.

Until then, expecting Israel to assume existential risks for the sake of a diplomatic formula is neither realistic nor responsible.

The goal should remain a peaceful future for both peoples. But peace is sustained by security, mutual recognition, and trust, not by slogans that overlook the lessons of history.

The events that followed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza should not be forgotten. They should be carefully studied. Lasting peace will require far more than new borders. It will require a transformation that convinces Israelis they are gaining a neighbor committed to coexistence rather than another launching point for conflict.

The author is the CEO of Time to Stand Up for Israel.