Homeland Redefined-Noura Dabdoub

We constantly see in the article "Homeland Redefined," that a two-state solution is emphasized as the major and most widely accepted political position to hold according to Noura Dabdoub. It might seem like a great idea up front to suggest the idea that the conflict will end when both the Palestinians and the Israelis have their own land to call home, but realistically, would it stop here, and is this the best option? I see the idea that Noura is trying to get across, but I don't believe it will help emotionally and physically, the suffering that Palestinians have gone through in any category except for identity. They would have a place to call home, but would this ultimately satisfy the needs of most of their people. One has to take into consideration other examples where similar situations have been carried out. One example of this would be Sudan. Sudan just recently was split into two different countries, one in the north, and one in the south. Where problems come into play, and I might be wrong, is that in Sudan, both governments fought over pipe lines for oil distribution, agricultural farms, and many other resource related issues. This caused a war for a short period of time between the two countries. Of course Israel's situation is different in many aspects, but do you believe that where there is resource such as oil that Israel is interested in, that after the separation of Israel into two states, they wouldn't try to sanction those resources and fight for them? Also, the US would never allow for a two state solution that separated Israel from any oil source within its boundaries. the reason for this is that the US would stop all military funding to Israel if they cut off a major source of oil supply for our economy. I love the idea of a homeland for Palestinians, but the main issue we face is figuring a way around resource distribution between the two states when formed that would not conflict with the US agenda.