Hamas supporters take part in a protest against Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ decision to postpone planned parliamentary elections, in the northern Gaza Strip April 30, 2021. Photo: Reuters/Mohammed Salem

For years, diplomats, activists, and international organizations have treated Palestinian statehood as a foregone conclusion. Their phrase — “two states for two peoples” — has become a fixture of political discourse, repeated so often that many assume its success is only a matter of time.

But after decades of failed negotiations, recurring violence, and deepening divisions, perhaps a more fundamental question deserves attention: What if the creation of a viable Palestinian state is simply not achievable under current conditions?

Statehood is not merely a declaration or a diplomatic aspiration. A country requires defined borders, effective governance, functioning institutions, internal security, economic capacity, and the ability to engage responsibly with the international community. Above all, it requires a coherent national project focused on building a future.

When measured against these standards, the Palestinian national movement faces challenges that have remained unresolved for generations.

There is no agreed territorial framework. Gaza and the Palestinian Authority have been politically separate for years. Elections have largely disappeared from public life. Armed factions frequently hold more influence than civilian institutions. International recognition may offer symbolic legitimacy, but it cannot substitute for functioning state structures.

Much of the global conversation focuses on Israeli obligations and Israeli concessions. Far less attention is devoted to examining the political choices made by Palestinian leadership itself. The institutions necessary for sustainable statehood have repeatedly been weakened by corruption, factional rivalries, internal power struggles, and a political culture that often elevates resistance above governance.

The consequences are visible. Generations have been raised amid conflict, grievance, and instability. While historical suffering should never be dismissed, a society cannot successfully build a nation if its primary political identity revolves around opposition to another nation. History offers countless examples of successful states that emerged by focusing on development, institutions, and the future rather than perpetual confrontation.

This reality raises difficult questions about the path forward.

One possibility would involve a genuine embrace of coexistence. If the population of Gaza were to permanently reject terrorism and accept peaceful relations with Israel, enormous opportunities could emerge. Reconstruction, investment, economic growth, improved infrastructure, and regional cooperation could dramatically transform daily life. Stability would benefit both Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Yet such a scenario appears distant. Decades of violence, mutual distrust, and deeply entrenched narratives have made compromise extraordinarily difficult on both sides. In Israel, there is still a movement that supports coexistence. Right now, that movement does not appear in Palestinian society.

The remaining option is the status quo.

That path offers neither resolution nor hope. It means continued instability, recurring military confrontations, persistent suffering, and a future defined by uncertainty. Israelis remain exposed to security threats. Palestinians remain trapped in political limbo. The conflict survives while solutions remain elusive.

Perhaps the most uncomfortable possibility is that there may be no ideal answer available. Every proposed solution collides with political realities, historical baggage, and competing national aspirations. Yet despite repeated failures, much of the international community continues to promote formulas that have produced little progress.

If a viable Palestinian state is unlikely to emerge under present conditions, then serious discussion must begin from that premise rather than from diplomatic slogans. Any meaningful conversation about the future must be grounded in facts on the ground, not aspirations detached from political realities.

Peace will not emerge from conference declarations alone. It will not be achieved through repeated rhetoric or symbolic resolutions.

Lasting stability can only be built on an honest assessment of what is possible, what is not, and what changes would be required to bridge the gap between the two.

The region’s future depends not on repeating familiar formulas, but on confronting reality as it exists today.

Sabine Sterk is the founder of Time To Stand Up For Israel.