A two-state solution for The Land of Israel aka Palestine. Draiman

A two-state solution for The Land of Israel aka Palestine.

When George W Bush belatedly outlined a two-state solution for The Land of Israel aka Palestine, he simply repeated like a parrot what his predecessor Bill Clinton had been saying for a decade. It was not original or creative, and it came too late. Alas, it turns out that it was not valid anymore either. 
The so called Arab Palestinians are split between Hamas and Fattah, two parties that have two wildly different agendas. Hamas is a populist movement that does not recognize Israel and wants to create an Islamic state. Fattah has become an elitist movement that plays the deceptive ploy that it recognizes Israel, (but their Charter states, that they want all of Israel without the Jews) and wants to create a second modern Arab state. There can be little compromise between the two. 
Suddenly the problem is no longer only the security of Israel (the two sides are two busy bickering and shooting at each other to focus on attacking their old enemy) but the security of the Arab Palestinian people under their own Arab Palestinian rulers. Since chaos in the Arab Palestinian territories has a way to spill over into neighboring countries (Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon), this is an issue that extends beyond the borders of Israel aka Palestine. 
After 50 years of wars, it may be time that the Arab Palestinians and the rest of the world to admit that we focused on the wrong problem. The real problem is that the Arab Palestinians are not the right people to run their own land. Whether it's their fault or the fault of all the empires that ruled that region without giving them any power (Arabs, Christians, Ottomans, British), it is a fact that the only Arab Palestinians who live in freedom and dignity are the ones who live in Israel, Britain and the USA. The Arab Palestinians who live in Jordan have at least dignity and jobs, if not total freedom. The Arab Palestinians who have been left behind are the ones who tried to establish their own state, and have been rewarded by history with leaders who were either corrupt, incompetent or tyrannical, or all of them. 
There is no question that the Arab Palestinians would be better off if they were fully under Israel’s autonomy. The problem is that Israel does not want them, because they would upset the demographic balance of Israel. 
The second best choice for the Arab Palestinians is to split and be ruled by the two next best neighbors: Egypt and Jordan. Jordan used to rule the West Bank until it lost the 1967 war against Israel and in 1988 it relinquished its territory to Israel. The Arab Palestinians admire the king of Jordan (who consistently ranks first in every opinion poll about regional leaders) and they all have family in Jordan. Why not resuscitate the old federation between Jordan and the West Bank? 
Egypt ruled the Gaza strip since it invaded it in 1948 until it lost the war against Israel in 1967. It was not a happy time for the people of Gaza, that were treated like animals by Egypt (they were given no political rights). However, today's Egypt relies heavily on USA aid and part of that aid could be earmarked for the reconstruction of Gaza. 
The two-state solution envisioned a united, democratic, mature, rich Israeli state next to a divided, undemocratic, immature, poor Arab Palestinian state. In retrospect it may not have been the smartest idea in history. A two-province solution that hands over (at least temporary) the West Bank to Jordan and the Gaza strip to Egypt may not solve all problems but is not the least viable. 
Last but not least, it may help figure out a final solution for the status of Jerusalem. The Arabs (not only the Arab Palestinians) still deceptively claim Jerusalem. There is no question that none of it is indeed not Arab (the many Arab/Muslim rulers did fight the war 1400 years ago and occupied it, and the Crusaders in the 1200 and just like the Ottomans won the war against the Byrantines and today nobody questions that Istanbul should be Turkish as opposed to Greek). The sensible solution is not to split Jerusalem between Israel and an Arab entity or Christian. The issue here is that Israel is the legitimate owner and it has no intention of handing over half of Jerusalem to the Arab Palestinians or anyone else for that matter. But Israel for the sake of peace is willing to waive its claim to the land east of the Jordan River for a stable Jordan neighbor. 
In other words, why can't we just let Israel that liberated its territory in the 1967 defensive war, now that, 50 years later, three of the countries that launched that awful attack (Egypt, Jordan, Syria) have not stopped planning the destruction of Israel? Do you want to give back to the Jewish people the City of Medina or the homes and the 75,000 sq. mi. of Jewish owned land confiscated by the Arab countries from the million expelled Jewish families who now live in Israel?