The “two-state solution” is touted as the only viable path for Israel and Palestine, but it’s worth questioning whether this “solution” is more political branding than reality. If partitions were inherently advantageous to unification, why not a seventy-two-state solution? Unique states for Gaza, the West Bank, all of my exes would seem just as workable. And despite mainstream endorsements, the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel remains elusive when Arab leaders continue to assert that no state will coexist with Israel.

But the problem isn’t just about whether a one- or two-state solution is best; it’s about the limiting nature of these terms, which flatten the conflict into a restrictive binary. This isn’t a binary, like whether someone is pregnant or dead. It’s a complex issue. Take the “Pro-life” vs. “pro-choice” rhetoric that does something similar: framing the conversation to suggest that people who support abortion rights are somehow “anti-life.” Some might suggest “pro-choice” vs. “anti-choice,” but this implies that devoutly religious have a choice. Simplified language can mislead the public, making complex issues sound deceptively straightforward.

Instead of endlessly seeking the ever-elusive “two-state” reality, a clearer path lies within the existing states: Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Syria. These neighboring nations could integrate Palestinian residents based on proximity and citizenship willingness, prioritizing freedom of movement and basic rights over ideological resistance. Zionists often raise valid questions, which are immediately deflected: Why were there no movement for a Palestinian State in Gaza when Egypt had control? Why cling to nationalist slogans that perpetuate ideological divides when a practical solution could address human rights? How will the violent war between Hamas-Fatah end even if this new state is recognized?

As we look deeper, it becomes clear that what’s really at stake is the chance to live freely, not bound by the propaganda of territories. I will again assert that Palestine is simply not about freedom. Arab refugees deserve better than Palestine. They deserve peace and the cultures of existing states.

This shift in approach isn’t only about regional stability but about ending the systemic human rights abuses enabled by the Palestinian leadership’s lack of secular freedoms and tolerance. From gender apartheid to a legal system that doesn’t allow basic individual rights, Palestinian governance has allowed serious rights violations to continue largely unchecked. Imagine a future where everyone in the region has the right to work, travel, and live safely—a future that prioritizes personal freedom and peace over endless conflict.

And yet, when figures like Norman Finkelstein are asked about a one-state solution, they pivot to discussing how perpetuating the conflict serves political and economic interests. It’s telling that people pushing a Palestinian state rarely seem to envision a world without this struggle; it’s almost as though the conflict has become an end in itself.

Surprisingly, one of the few notable figures to address the Israel-Palestine conflict with a creative compromise was Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who proposed a one-state solution dubbed “Isratine.” The name may be nonsense—especially given that “Palestine” is itself a non-indigenous term with a Baath/Arab Revolt flag—but Gaddafi’s idea remains significant as one of the only high-profile alternatives to the two-state model. Despite its odd branding, Isratine underscores the point: why haven’t more leaders considered a one-state framework that might focus on coexistence rather than enforced separation? Gaddafi’s demise proved it is apparent political suicide to earnestly suggest that Israel’s Jews and Arabs can live with Palestinians.

In the end, for me at least, it’s about choosing integration and freedom over exclusion and propaganda. A future where peace doesn’t mean a dividing wall but a unified region with respect for human rights—now that would be progressive.