In what has to be one of the most hypocritical moves in history, as the Israel Defense Forces advance in the Gaza Strip, Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh is seeking “political negotiations” — calling for a ceasefire and a “two-state solution” — in stark contrast with his colleagues’ declared intention to stage repeats of the Oct. 7 slaughter until Israel is eradicated.

“‘We are ready for political negotiations for a two-state solution with Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine,’ Haniyeh said during his Nov. 1 address, adding a caveat that the process can only begin on condition of a ceasefire and the opening of humanitarian corridors to bring more aid into Gaza,” The Times of Israel reported on Nov. 2.

“Ismail Haniyeh’s ostensible willingness to engage in dialogue with Israel seemed wholly at odds with the statement of another member of the Hamas politburo, Ghazi Hamad, who declared last week that the terror group intends to perpetrate further massacres akin to that of October 7 if only given the chance, until Israel is destroyed,” the newspaper added.

Meanwhile, on Oct. 31, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically dismissed the idea, saying that those calling for a ceasefire are in effect calling for Israel to surrender to terrorism and barbarism.

“Just as the United States would not agree to a ceasefire after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or after the terrorist attack of 9/11, Israel will not agree to a cessation of hostilities with Hamas,” Netanyahu said during a press conference for foreign media.

For almost a quarter century, a “two-state solution” has been at the center of international policy toward Israelis and Palestinians, but the realities on the ground seem to be moving in the opposite direction. 

Criticism of a two-state diplomacy has grown not only in the Middle East, but, increasingly, in Washington as well. Is the two-state solution still the most appropriate basis for policy, or are new approaches needed to address a potential one-state reality? we ask.

As for the technical definition of the two-state solution, Wikipedia says it is “the plan (that) allotted the poorest lands of Palestine, including the Negev Desert, and areas that are known today as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, to the Arabs; while most of the coastline and some of Palestine’s most fertile agricultural land in Galilee were allotted to the Jews.”

We totally agree with Netanyahu’s assessment about the ramifications of a ceasefire — or a “humanitarian pause” — now. 

What’s more, given that polls clearly show that many Palestinians want to kill off all the Jews and take the whole land of Palestine (including Israel) for themselves, Israel needs to rid the Gaza Strip of its enemies, remain a formidable miltary powerhouse and otherwise continue to reach out for peace (through strength) in its politically unstable neighborhood.