Maybe instead of a Two State Solution, we need a Three State Solution.
Gasa can become Hamasastan. It can keep it’s military intact and arm itself as much as it likes.
The West Bank can become Palestine, but it must exist as a demilitarized state, with no army, no militia and no weapons.
Residents of the West Bank and Gaza should be given a six-month period to decide which state they prefer. Do they want to live next to Hamas rocket launchers, or do they want to live in peace on the West Bank?
After six months, the borders would be sealed, and each country would be responsible for what happens in their own territory.
The result would be a stable peace with the West Bank, leading eventually to a reasonable prosperous and independent Palestine, which would provide a decent life to its citizens.
Gaza, of course, would become a militarized hell-hole, right up until the time they could not help themselves anymore, and they launch an attack on Israel. I give them about two weeks. At that point, as the attacked party, Israel can just move in and take over under any rule you could imagine.
The advantage of the Three State Solution is that anybody in Gaza at the time the Israeli tanks roll will be there voluntarily, and will have endorsed military opposition to Israel. There will not be any nonsense about non-combatants caught in the cross-fire, because everybody in the cross-fire will have volunteered to be there.
Thus the Three State Solution becomes the Two State Solution again.
I don’t think the Arabs there would accept it. There seems to be two schools of thought: drive out the Jews openly and immediately (Hamas approach), or drive out the Jews gradually (PLO and European approach, using a 2-state solution as a step in that direction).
Within those schools, there seem to be different long-term preferences for extermination, expulsion or enslavement. I don’t see any serious support for a long-term two-state solution.