World leaders and the United Nations are once again pressuring Israel to accept a two-state solution, claiming it is the only path to peace. But critics like the late conservative commentator Charlie Kirk argued that Israel already tried that model in Gaza — and the result was Hamas terror, not peace.
A Renewed Push for a Palestinian State
On September 12, the UN General Assembly voted 142–10 to endorse a declaration demanding “irreversible steps” toward a two-state solution. France’s Emmanuel Macron and several European governments have announced plans to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, hoping to force Israel’s hand.
The United States and Israel opposed the declaration, with U.S. officials calling it a “gift to Hamas.”
Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon warned: “When terrorists are the ones cheering, you are not advancing peace; you are advancing terror.”
Meanwhile, inside Israel, more politicians are calling for annexation of Judea and Samaria rather than risking another Gaza-style withdrawal.
Gaza: A Failed Experiment
Kirk’s central argument was that Israel has already tested the two-state model. In 2005, Israel withdrew every soldier and civilian from Gaza, handing full control to the Palestinians. Instead of peace, the people of Gaza elected Hamas, a U.S.-designated terror group committed to Israel’s destruction.
“Israel pulled out of Gaza completely… They had a two-state solution. What happened? Hamas happened. They were democratically elected,” Kirk explained. “A two-state solution means that people like that will win again.”
Since then, Hamas has turned Gaza into a fortress of terror — launching tens of thousands of rockets, digging cross-border tunnels, and ultimately carrying out the October 7th Massacre. As Kirk put it: “Israel never should have given up their rights to Gaza. It was one of the biggest mistakes Israel ever made.”
U.S. officials have echoed this warning, stressing that international moves to impose statehood only strengthen Hamas rather than peace-seeking moderates.
Christian Holy Sites at Risk
Kirk also warned that the push for Palestinian statehood threatens not only Israeli lives but also Christian access to their holiest places. He pointed to Bethlehem, birthplace of Jesus, as an example of what happens when sacred sites fall under Arab rule. Once a majority-Christian town, Bethlehem has seen its Christian population plummet while pilgrims face harassment and restrictions.
“It’s very hard for Christians to go to the birthplace of Christ, Bethlehem. It’s controlled completely by Arab Muslims. It’s very dangerous,” he said.
If Judea and Samaria were ceded, sites like the Mount of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the Garden Tomb could face the same fate. Today, only Israeli sovereignty guarantees free access to Jerusalem’s holy places for Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike. Surrendering that territory would put these sites under the control of the same forces that turned Bethlehem into a no-go zone for many believers.
No Peace Through Surrender
Israel’s critics insist the two-state solution is the only viable path forward. Yet the Gaza withdrawal shows that surrendering land only strengthens extremists and endangers civilians. As Ambassador Danon warned at the UN, when Hamas and its backers celebrate, the world should see the truth: such moves empower terror, not peace.
This is a developing story. Updates will follow as more information becomes available.
