Does a Two-State Solution Really Put Palestinians First, or Are Gazans Better Off with Israel?

If statehood means entrenching Hamas and prolonging conflict, then Palestinians may be safer and freer under a system that protects their lives and futures rather than sacrificing them to ideology.

The debate over what is often described as a “Greater Israel” is framed in many circles as an act of occupation or erasure, but this framing misses the deeper reality of what is at stake. The real question is whether people can live safely, freely, and with dignity. 

When looking honestly at the history of Palestinian leadership, the aspiration for a sovereign state has almost always been tied to groups that are militant in nature, whose first instinct is not to build a society of prosperity but to wage war against Israel. There has never truly been a sustained period where peace and coexistence were at the forefront of leadership agendas. 

From the days of Yasser Arafat’s PLO through to Hamas’s violent takeover of Gaza in 2007, the Palestinian people have repeatedly found themselves under rulers who elevated ideology and conflict above education, economic opportunity, or human development. Ordinary Palestinians who wanted peace have struggled to stand up against Hamas because the cost of dissent is imprisonment, torture, or death. That is why the population has remained trapped under its grip, not out of choice but out of fear.

This is why the question should not be understood simply in terms of borders. Israel has proven in practice that Palestinians can live safely and freely within its system. Nearly two million Arab citizens of Israel, many of whom self-identify as Palestinian, study in Israeli universities, work in Israeli hospitals, start companies in the tech sector, and serve in government. 

They are represented in the Knesset, they publish in Hebrew and Arabic, they enjoy freedom of religion, and they are protected by Israel’s independent judiciary. While discrimination exists, as it does in every society, the difference in daily life between Palestinians under Israeli citizenship and Palestinians under Hamas’s rule in Gaza is stark. One side has the chance to build a career, raise a family, and plan for the future. The other side faces endless cycles of war, corruption, and foreign interference that keep them trapped in despair.

It is worth reflecting on the turning point of 2005 when Israel withdrew from Gaza. The disengagement was framed as a moment for Palestinians to prove they could govern themselves, and they inherited fertile land, greenhouses, and border access. Had the leadership of Gaza chosen peace, the territory could have become a flourishing Mediterranean hub, trading with Europe and the Arab world. 

Instead, within months, Hamas consolidated power through violence and set the course for almost two decades of rocket attacks, kidnappings, and war. Billions in aid poured into Gaza, yet much of it was siphoned off for weapons and tunnels rather than schools and hospitals. The Palestinian people did not get to enjoy the fruits of self-rule because the priority was never their development but their usefulness in a permanent state of conflict against Israel.

This cycle continues because Gaza and the wider Palestinian cause have been entangled in proxy wars waged by powers such as Iran and Qatar. Iranian funding and arms, worth hundreds of millions annually, ensure that Hamas remains committed to war rather than compromise. 

Qatar bankrolls leadership and infrastructure, giving Hamas an incentive to prolong conflict. These foreign patrons do not live with the consequences of their decisions, yet their money and influence guarantee that ordinary Palestinians remain pawns. For Palestinian children, this has meant classrooms destroyed, universities shut down, and their futures sacrificed so that militancy can be sustained.

When critics dismiss talk of a Greater Israel as occupation, they ignore the reality that many Palestinians already live within Israel not as erased people but as citizens with rights. Identity is not lost. Culture continues. Arab Israelis call themselves Palestinian, Arab, Druze, or Bedouin and still live under a legal framework that grants far more opportunity and stability than what exists in Gaza or even the West Bank. 

The comparison is not ideological but practical. If you want a Palestinian child to grow up with education, safety, and a future, you need to ask whether that child is better off under the rule of Hamas or under the governance of a state that has demonstrated the ability to protect and sustain its minorities.

The problem with calls for Palestinian statehood today is that it risks cementing the very forces that harm Palestinians the most. A state is not just a flag; it is sovereignty, legitimacy, and international recognition. If Hamas or a similar faction retains influence, then statehood will not mean liberation for Palestinians, it will mean entrenching terrorism under the shield of sovereignty. 

And we must ask the hard question: if Hamas has not walked away from power in Gaza for nearly two decades, why would they walk away from power once a Palestinian state is declared? If we are not prepared to dismantle Hamas, as Netanyahu has vowed, then we must accept that they will remain in place, possibly under a different name, but with the same control and the same grip on the people. In such a scenario, a Palestinian state would not free its people but imprison them permanently under rulers who thrive on war.

Borders and ideological claims have consumed generations, and yet the outcome has always been the same: war, poverty, and death for ordinary Palestinians. If the true goal is to safeguard Palestinian lives, then the fixation on drawing new lines in the sand makes little sense. What matters is the system of governance and the culture that sustains it. In Israel, Palestinians have proven they can thrive when given the chance. In Gaza, every opportunity has been destroyed by leadership that values rockets over textbooks.

It is time to ask a harder question. Do we care more about defending a flag or about defending the lives of children? If the answer is the children, then it becomes clear that ideological borders are not worth the suffering that has been poured into them. The future of Palestinians depends on freeing them from leaders and external powers who feed on endless war. A pragmatic approach would see Israel as the safeguard, not the obstacle, to their future. If we can put the value of human life above the obsession with statehood at any cost, then perhaps a path can be found where Palestinians live not as pawns in conflict but as citizens who share in safety, prosperity, and dignity.

So the real question you have to ask yourselves is this: are Palestinians better off isolated under a theocracy or united with their neighbours under a democracy? And if you look beyond the naming of a country, is Greater Israel not in effect also a Greater Palestine? Where the mandate of Palestine had Arab against Jew, and the separation has kept Arab against Jew, yet under Israel Arab and Jew live peacefully together and no one loses their identity. I have always found that those who encourage segregation, separation, and opposition to the other are themselves part of the problem. True progress comes not from drawing new borders but from breaking down the barriers that keep people divided. Think about it.