After a grinding war launched by the Israelis on the Gaza Strip and desecration of Muslim’s first qibla, the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, many international organizations, humanitarian institutions and observers are raising questions about the settlement based on a two-state solution: Palestine and Israel. 

The question that presents itself is: Does the two-state solution really lead to a viable settlement to the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The conflict has always concerned those in charge of proposing this initiative.

Before the recent escalation which was sparked after Israeli forces and the extremist Jewish settlers stormed the core sanctities of Islam and Christianity in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, no one in Israel could imagine dimensions of the crisis.

Now Israel is facing global condemnation. The voices of the free people are placing the Israeli regime in an isolated position.  

Israel did not take into account the repercussions of storming Al-Aqsa, arresting worshipers, putting them into prison, and humiliating them in front of the eyes and ears of the world. Most radios and televisions across the world covered the event.

It was not in the calculations of the authorities of the Israeli regime that the fire of their weapons, their militarism, and their arsenal would not scare the Palestinians. Rather, Israel made Palestinians tougher and more resistant in the face of what they had suffered for over seven decades, including the occupation and seizure of property, slaughtering, displacement, and destruction of their most valuable possessions, and so on.

However, the measured and calculated response of the resistance factions and the global uprising in support of the defenseless Palestinian people, and the marches of peoples for this painful catastrophe undermined the claims by Israel and its influence in the United Nations.

Israelis had assumed that the Palestinian cause has lost color with the passage of time as some Arab countries normalized their ties with Israel, including the Emirates, Bahrain, and Sudan.  

The Israelis are well aware that they cannot resort to any legal move or seek the help of any international body to legitimize their measures and policies, whether in the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International and other bodies that they should be held accountable.

In the recent crisis in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, where the Palestinians have been facing discrimination since 1972, an Israeli plot to displace them and build settlements on the ruins of their homes under the claim that the land on which their homes were built by the Jordanian government was rented. These are intended to legalize their existence and occupation.

The international community, including the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Security Council, as well as the United States of America, European countries, and official and unofficial bodies, have talked a lot about the two-state solution to resolve the crisis between Israel and Palestine, but our question is about the seriousness of this initiative and can it be applied in practice on the ground or just launching a slogan to prolong the crisis and distract the Palestinians from their demands until they steal the last inch of their land.
Much effort has already been made in the path of putting an end to such a situation, including nearly three decades of diplomacy; the Oslo Accords, the Camp David summit, the Clinton Parameters, the Taba summit, the Arab Peace Initiative, the road map for the Middle East, and Abbas and Olmert's talks in the context of the Annapolis process, and John Kerry's efforts to achieve peace and other relentless attempts.

The Israelis believe that the formation of a Palestinian state that unites its people, houses the displaced, and brings them together with various orientations, will open the gates of hellfire on them.

The Zionist regime considers the formation of any future Palestinian government is synonymous with facing a huge human force that is not stopped by the F-35 fighters or cruise missiles and is not prevented by tanks like Super Sherman nor Merkava.

Some Israelis who are in a state of euphoria and deluded by the idea of building a state based on their military power designate the Palestinians as terrorists groups willing to cut settlers into pieces while others (in the best cases) who are more realistic believe that the Palestinians are a people who do not compromise their cause and do not accept trading their homeland despite the fact that the world has abandoned them.

So, the formation of a Palestinian state means an arsenal of weapons and a formidable military force, and the Palestinians will not give up their right.

They were fighting with stones, but with the establishment of the state, they would target Israel with missiles, fighters, and all that they would possess.

The first presumption is difficult as Israelis cannot accept to continue their life with threats that come to them from everywhere. 

Accepting a Palestinian state means living alongside the Palestinians in their vicinity, and not to continue bombing, killing, displacing, or desecrating the sanctities of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the rest of the holy sites for Muslims and Christians until hearing the last Palestinian breath out.

Based on this fact, how can we expect "Israel" to accept the idea of a "two-state solution", which means the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza alongside itself?

It should be noted that the West Bank, including Jerusalem, for the Jews, is the core and essence of the biblical land. Will Israel give it up? Why? And under which pressures? 

Another obstacle facing the two-state solution is settlement operations; the presence of settlers, and the absolute control of "Israel" over more than half of the West Bank, according to the Oslo agreement, makes it difficult for the establishment of a Palestinian state with real sovereignty, due to lack of independence, security and economic components as it is surrounded by Israel from four sides; in addition to its sky and what is under its land (i.e. from its six sides, not the four)., "Israel" will never abandon Jerusalem due to political, religious, economic and tourism considerations.

One of the other main obstacles to achieve the two-state solution (a Palestinian state with full sovereignty over the borders of June 4, 1967) is the idea of returning to homeland -- the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland from which they were forcibly evicted. 
The right of return is the essence of the Palestinian cause. Although the Palestinian political leadership constantly reiterate the “right of return,” they are fully aware that this will not be achieved in light of the circumstances that Palestine is experiencing at regional and international levels.

 Consequently, in the event that they are unable to return refugees to their homeland, what is the benefit of the two-state solution if half of the Palestinian people remain homeless and scattered?

With all this evidence that we have mentioned, it makes it impossible for Israel to accept this level of embarrassment; and even though it is now not in a position to be forced to make all these concessions, knowing that this step can end its existence.