There's no 2-state solution

Barbara Lerner makes a good case in National Review (via One Jerusalem) against the disastrous brew of a two-state solution, and also brings up a bit of history about where the name "palestine" originated:

The “two-state solution” wasn’t always sacrosanct. In the 1940s and ’50s, it didn’t even exist. There were no Palestinians then, although the territory had been called the British Mandate for Palestine (after the old Roman name for Israel, Palestina). Arabs had never called themselves Palestinians; the few Jews who had called themselves that in the 1930s no longer did. There were only Arabs and Jews, and the openly avowed goal of all the Arab states surrounding Israel was to drive the Jews into the sea, and divide up the land amongst themselves. Arabs inside Israel were no less committed to that same pan-Arab goal. It was only in the 1960s, after the abject failure of repeated multi-state military assaults by massed Arab armies, that Arab rulers finally accepted the fact that Israel was not yet weak enough for them to destroy in open warfare.

Make sure to read further about why the biblical Israel is a good answer.