A Palestinian state will not bring about peace and security in the Middle East; it will instead foster more terrorism and chaos.

By Matthew Narh Tetteh

The establishment of a so-called Palestinian state is often presented as a pathway to peace in the Middle East, a supposed solution to the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, this narrative overlooks critical realities that suggest such a state would not usher in stability but instead foster terrorism and chaos, threatening Israel’s security and the region’s delicate balance. From an objective perspective, the risks of a Palestinian state far outweigh the optimistic promises of peace, given the historical and current behaviour of Palestinian leadership, the entrenched culture of violence, and the strategic dangers such a state would pose. A Palestinian State will lead to numerous repetitions of October 7th.

Historical Context: A Legacy of Rejection and Violence

Israel has consistently demonstrated a willingness to pursue peace through negotiations and territorial concessions. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has faced relentless hostility from its neighbours, including Palestinian factions that have rejected its right to exist. The 1947 UN Partition Plan, which proposed a two-state solution, was accepted by Jewish leaders but categorically rejected by Arab leaders, leading to the first Arab-Israeli war. This pattern of rejectionism has persisted. In 2000, at Camp David, Israel offered a generous deal to Yasser Arafat, including 97% of Judea and  Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as a capital. Arafat’s response was the Second Intifada, a wave of suicide bombings and terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israelis. In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered an even more far-reaching proposal, only to be met with silence from Mahmoud Abbas.

This history underscores a critical point: Palestinian leadership has repeatedly chosen violence over compromise. The creation of a Palestinian state, rather than satisfying grievances, risks empowering factions committed to Israel’s destruction, such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which openly call for jihad and reject any peace with the Jewish state.

The Threat of Hamas and Terrorist Control

Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation by the United States, European Union, and others, has controlled Gaza since 2007, following Israel’s unilateral withdrawal in 2005. Far from fostering peace, this withdrawal led to Gaza becoming a launching pad for thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli civilians, with over 15,000 rockets fired since 2005. Hamas’s charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, and its governance has prioritised building terror tunnels and amassing weapons over improving the lives of Gazans. A Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza would likely fall under similar control, given Hamas’s popularity among Palestinians—polls consistently show significant support for the group, with a 2023 survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research indicating 43% of West Bank Palestinians prefer Hamas over Fatah.

A Palestinian state would provide a platform for such groups to escalate their attacks. With greater territorial control, access to borders, and potentially an internationally recognized government, Hamas could acquire advanced weaponry, establish formal military structures, and coordinate attacks with other regional actors like Hezbollah or Iran. Israel, a nation smaller than New Jersey, would face an existential threat from a hostile state just miles from its major population centres, such as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Strategic and Security Risks

The geography of a Palestinian state poses insurmountable security challenges for Israel. Judea and Samaria (West Bank), if ceded, would place Israel’s Ben-Gurion International Airport and major cities within range of basic artillery and rocket fire. The Jordan Valley, a critical buffer against threats from the east, would be lost, leaving Israel vulnerable to infiltration by jihadist groups operating in Jordan or Iraq. The 1967 borders, often cited as the basis for a Palestinian state, are indefensible, as they reduce Israel’s width to as little as nine miles at its narrowest point.

Moreover, a Palestinian state would likely become a proxy for Iran, which already funds and arms Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran’s growing influence in the region, coupled with its stated goal of annihilating Israel, makes the prospect of a Palestinian state a strategic disaster. A state with sovereign control over its borders could facilitate the flow of Iranian weapons, transforming Judea and Samaria (West Bank) into a second Gaza—a scenario Israel cannot afford.

A Culture of Incitement and Rejectionism

Beyond the immediate security threats, the Palestinian Authority (PA) itself has failed to foster a culture of peace. The PA’s education system glorifies violence, with textbooks praising “martyrs” and maps erasing Israel entirely. The PA’s “pay-for-slay” program, which provides stipends to terrorists and their families, incentivizes violence, with over $1 billion spent on such payments since 2003. This culture of incitement ensures that even if a state were established, its population would remain steeped in anti-Israel sentiment, undermining any hope for coexistence.

The PA’s governance is equally troubling. Plagued by corruption and mismanagement, it has failed to build institutions capable of sustaining a stable state. Mahmoud Abbas, now in the 20th year of a four-year term, rules without democratic legitimacy, and the PA’s security forces are often complicit in or incapable of stopping terrorist activities. A Palestinian state under such leadership would likely devolve into a failed state, akin to Yemen or Syria, becoming a breeding ground for extremism and chaos.

The Regional Ripple Effect

The creation of a Palestinian state would not only threaten Israel but destabilize the broader Middle East. Jordan, which shares a long border with the West Bank, fears that a Palestinian state could embolden its own Palestinian population, potentially undermining the Hashemite monarchy. Egypt, already grappling with Sinai-based terrorism, would face increased risks from a Hamas-controlled Gaza as part of a Palestinian state. The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, could be jeopardized as those nations prioritize stability over ideological battles with Israel. A chaotic Palestinian state would disrupt this emerging alliance, empowering Iran and its proxies to exploit the resulting instability.

The Path Forward: Security and Realism

Israel’s survival depends on maintaining defensible borders and deterring threats. Rather than pursuing the illusion of a Palestinian state, the international community should focus on fostering genuine Palestinian reform—dismantling terror networks, ending incitement, and building institutions capable of governance. Israel has shown it can coexist with peaceful neighbours, as evidenced by its peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and the Abraham Accords. But peace cannot be built on concessions to groups sworn to its destruction.

The notion of a Palestinian state as a panacea for peace ignores the reality of Palestinian rejectionism, the dominance of terrorist groups, and the strategic vulnerabilities it would create for Israel. Far from bringing stability, such a state would likely become a hub of terrorism and chaos, threatening not only Israel but the entire region. For the sake of security and realism, the focus must remain on ensuring Israel’s strength and fostering genuine change within Palestinian society—because peace cannot be achieved by rewarding violence.

#Judea and Samaria is Israel

#Jews are from Judea