Paradigm Lost: From Two-State Solution to One-State Reality is a 2019 book by political scientist Ian S. Lustick, published by University of Pennsylvania Press about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

[7] Lustick views the failure of the two-state solution as primarily due to Israel, which had overwhelming military superiority and controlled the Palestinian territories from 1967 onwards.

[4] Oren Barak, political scientist at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called the book "well-written and thought-provoking", its arguments "persuasive, eloquent, and supported by ample evidence", and said it would be helpful to policy makers and other readers.

However, she argues that he ignores the literature on settler colonialism and Zionism as an example thereof: "From the perspective of settler-colonial studies, there is nothing unusual in the violence associated with the Iron Wall strategy, nor is there anything unintentional about continually seizing land, controlling resources, and blatantly denying self-rule to the Indigenous population through codification of discriminatory treatment.

[11] David Abraham, Marxist historian and Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Miami, argues that the solutions Lustick proposes are improbable, overlooking anti-normalization sentiment in Palestinian society as well as overestimating the likelihood that Israeli annexation supporters would choose equality over apartheid: "the incentives for the OSR programme today are as lacking as those for the TSS".

Mira Sucharov, Jewish political scientist at Carleton University, argues that the book overlooks some issues, such as Palestinian refugees, and says that some readers will consider the obstacles to a single democratic state more insurmountable than to the TSS, although overall she agrees with his argument.

Although he argues that the book neglects Palestinian politics and therefore presents a "somewhat skewed and incomplete" account of the failure of the TSS, it is convincing on others—such as treating all of Israel/Palestine as a single, nondemocratic entity—and at a minimum would stimulate thinking and discussion.