Names and Narrative: “Two State Solution” Versus “Question of SAPs”

For decades, diplomats, academics, and international institutions have spoken in rote terms about a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict. The problem is that such framing is intellectually dishonest and dangerously outdated.

There already is a state—Israel. It is not a hypothetical solution; it is a living reality. A sovereign nation with a vibrant democracy, a powerful military, a thriving economy, and a diverse citizenry, including over two million Arab citizens. Israel has fought for its survival, defended its borders, absorbed Jewish refugees from around the world, and became the most advanced and liberal society in the Middle East.

It is not a concept to be debated—it is a geopolitical fact.

Framing Israel as one part of a “two-state solution,” as if it were an idea or obstacle fundamentally misrepresents the situation. It inherently delegitimizes the struggle of millions of Israelis who sacrificed to build their nation since 1948 and casts their future into uncertainty.

We are not in 1947.

So let’s reframe the question. The only real debate is about the SAPs—the stateless Arab from Palestine. What is the just, secure, and realistic political future for them?

That opens multiple options—not a binary choice between creating “Palestine” or “occupation,” but a nuanced discussion based on facts on the ground and historical behavior. It reorients the discussion to the SAPs who seek an answer and thereby considers THEIR statements, sentiments, and actions rather than placing the scrutiny and opprobrium on Israel, which inherently strips SAPs of agency and responsibility.

Should the SAPs get a full sovereign state even after the dominant political party engaged in genocidal acts? Can SAPs be trusted with statehood and a military while state media glorifies terrorism and denies both Jewish history and Israel’s right to exist, and tramples on human rights?

Now, under the misguided focus on Israel as part of the “two-state solution,” the United Nations Human Rights Council has a standing item (Agenda 7) focused only on Israel. Similarly, UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, which only reviews the actions of Israel. Nowhere does the UN focus on the actions and statements of SAPs and their leadership to consider the best course for their future. It’s a fatal flaw, one of many self-inflicted tragedies that the UN has instilled into the region.

The UN fails to comment and address:

The Palestinian Authority (PA) priority on paying salaries to the families of terrorists.
The barbaric attack of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad on October 7, 2023, and overwhelming support it had amongst SAPs.
The vile antisemitic Hamas foundational charter which brought the party to 58% of parliament.
The ongoing failure of Palestinian parties to reconcile under a single governing entity.
The deeply corrupt and unpopular PA.
A deformity in local culture in which the majority of SAPs have always wanted to kill Jewish Israeli civilians.
A PA media and school system that promotes antisemitism and incites hatred.
A society with various armed groups which refuse to disarm that are more popular than the PA.

Instead, the UN focuses on misdirection towards Israel and masquerades the reality of SAPs. It gives the PA seats at UN panels and committees even though it has no power, support or authority, parading a fake caricature of the situation. This does nothing to help SAPs address the failure of its society nor hold it accountable for its actions.

For the UN, the answer to the question of SAPs is the creation of a new state for local Arabs which should be Jew-free. Remarkably, the global body cannot ponder that such goal is deeply antisemitic. Equally as pathetic, the failure to consider any other solution to statehood grants SAPs a free hand to commit any sort of atrocity.

The Question of SAPs must not have a forgone conclusion. That approach has failed for years at the price of thousands of lives.

Maybe SAPs can have a state-minus—something akin to post-WWII Japan: self-governance, civil services, education, cultural autonomy—but demilitarized, with security handled by an external guarantor to prevent further war and terror.

Or perhaps certain areas of the West Bank could be confederated with Jordan, whose population is majority SAPs already. Maybe Jordan itself should be divided whereby a section would be part of a Palestinian State together with parts of the West Bank.

The area east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL) might remain under Israeli sovereignty with SAPs having semi-autonomous status—akin to Native American reservations in the U.S., which have self-rule in many areas but rely on the larger state for defense, currency, and diplomacy. Or the areas get annexed and the residents get Israeli citizenship.

These are serious, legitimate proposals worthy of debate.

*Buildings on both sides of Security barrier in Jerusalem (photo: First One Through)*

But let’s be clear: any outcome is about solving the question of what to do with the SAPs. It is not about creating two states. Israel is already there.

The time has come to retire the “two-state solution” slogan. Not because peace is impossible—but because clarity and focus are essential.