In the turbulent arena of international diplomacy, few issues have been as persistent and contentious as the debate over Palestinian statehood. For decades, resolutions, conferences, and declarations have proliferated in the halls of the United Nations and within foreign capitals, advancing the notion of a “two-state solution.” Yet despite the sheer volume of rhetoric and political maneuvering, a Palestinian state has not come into being. Far from being an accident of history, this reality reflects an essential truth: such a state would constitute not a solution, but a mortal threat to Israel’s survival. The events of October 7th — the bloodiest day in modern Jewish history since the Holocaust — have only underscored this truth with devastating clarity.

The international community has, for decades, sought to legitimize Palestinian statehood. One hundred and forty-five countries — a clear majority of the world’s nations — have formally recognized “Palestine.” Of those, 136 did so before October 7th, and nine joined them in the months since. The first major wave of recognition came in 1988, following Yasser Arafat’s unilateral “declaration of independence” in the midst of the First Intifada. At that time, Arafat was still based in Tunis, and the Oslo Accords were still years away. Recognition was extended not to a functioning polity, but to a symbol — a fictitious entity divorced from both geographic reality and political legitimacy.

Notably, even countries considered among Israel’s close friends — including Hungary, Argentina, and Paraguay — joined in extending this recognition. Such gestures reflected less an endorsement of Palestinian governance than a bow to diplomatic fashion, internal pressures, and geopolitical calculations. Yet these recognitions, however numerous, did not translate into an actual sovereign state, nor did they alter the facts on the ground.

The latest attempt to inject momentum into Palestinian statehood comes through a French-Saudi initiative that traces its origins to a resolution adopted at an emergency session of the UN General Assembly in September 2024. That resolution called for convening an international conference, under UN auspices, during the 79th session to advance what was described as the “Palestinian issue and the two-state solution.”

A subsequent resolution in December 2024 reiterated the call, even setting a date for June 2025. That timeline was postponed, largely as a result of the war with Iran, but the underlying push remains. These initiatives are not novel. Since 2002, the “two-state solution” has been enshrined in countless UN resolutions, both in the Security Council and the General Assembly. The famous 1947 Partition Plan, often invoked as a historical precursor, remains a touchstone for those advocating the division of the land.

Indeed, the phrase has appeared across multiple contexts: during the Second Intifada, in the framework of the 2003 Roadmap for Peace, at the Annapolis Conference, in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead, and even during the current “Swords of Iron” war. Over the years, the General Assembly has adopted more than one hundred resolutions referencing the concept. In 2012, it even upgraded the Palestinian Authority’s standing to that of a “non-member state.” Yet despite this institutional repetition, the vision remains unrealized.

The failure of these diplomatic maneuvers to produce a Palestinian state is not an accident. It reflects the profound dangers inherent in the idea itself. Prime Minister Menachem Begin, of blessed memory, articulated this decades ago: there can be no foreign sovereignty and no foreign army west of the Jordan River other than the Israel Defense Forces. His words, rooted in both history and strategy, were prophetic.

On October 7th, the world saw why. The barbaric Hamas assault — the slaughter of families in their homes, the mass kidnappings, the desecration of Israeli communities — revealed the existential stakes with terrifying clarity. That such atrocities could be planned and executed from Gaza, a territory Israel unilaterally evacuated in 2005, is the starkest possible warning against any further ceding of land or authority to hostile entities. To contemplate a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, or the heart of Jerusalem is to invite a forward jihadist stronghold mere kilometers from Israel’s population centers.

What makes the current diplomatic climate particularly galling is that, rather than reevaluating their assumptions in the wake of October 7th, some states have doubled down on pressuring Israel. That nine additional countries have recognized “Palestine” since the massacres is not only misguided but reckless. In effect, such recognition rewards Hamas for mass murder, conferring legitimacy on a project that would endanger Israel’s very existence.

Many of these decisions, when examined closely, reveal themselves as driven less by sober strategic reasoning than by domestic political pressures. Leaders seek to placate constituencies, appease restive populations, or burnish their own international credentials. Yet the result is the same: attempts to force upon Israel a paradigm that is both dangerous and unworkable.

This pressure comes even as Israel continues to fight a war in Gaza, even as hostages remain in terrorist hands, and even as the Palestinian Authority itself continues to pay stipends to terrorists and to indoctrinate children with messages of incitement. To push for Palestinian statehood under these circumstances is not simply irresponsible; it is detached from the realities on the ground.

For Israel, the question of a Palestinian state is not a matter of diplomatic preference, but of existential survival. To permit the creation of such a state would be to invite Hamas and its allies into the very heart of the country, where they could strike at Israel’s population centers with ease. It would mean placing jihadist infrastructure within walking distance of Ben-Gurion Airport, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem.

The danger is not theoretical. The Gaza experience demonstrates vividly what happens when territory is ceded. Instead of peace, Israel received rocket barrages, terror tunnels, and — ultimately — the atrocities of October 7th. To replicate this experiment on a far larger scale in Judea and Samaria would be nothing less than suicidal.

The most formidable obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state, however, is not the duplicity of foreign powers nor the inertia of international institutions. It is the will of the Israeli people. Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand the stakes. They have lived the consequences of territorial concessions. They know that their security — and that of their children — depends on maintaining exclusive control west of the Jordan.

It is this broad public opposition that serves as the true dam against the flood of external pressure. Strengthening that national spirit is essential. As long as Israelis remain resolute, the dream of a Palestinian terror state in the heart of the country will remain just that — a dream, never a reality.

The campaign to create a Palestinian state has spanned decades, filled countless pages of UN resolutions, and commanded the rhetoric of world leaders. Yet it has failed, and it must continue to fail. October 7th was the most brutal reminder that the dangers long articulated by the late, great Menachem Begin and others are real, present, and intolerable.

Israel cannot — and will not — permit foreign sovereignty or a foreign army west of the Jordan. The international community may persist in its illusions, but for Israel, this is not a matter of diplomatic bargaining. It is a matter of survival.

In the end, the fate of the land will not be determined in Paris, Riyadh, or New York, but in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, by a people who understand the price of their security. And on this issue, Israelis remain united: a Palestinian state must never rise in the heart of their land.