Published: 5 February 2018
Last updated: 4 March 2024
As The New York Times subsequently reported, Erekat is hardly alone. The “over”-ness of “two states”—albeit with radical disagreements about the character of a hypothetical single state—has been claimed by ideological zealots, severe liberals, and exasperated peacemakers alike.
The justification for the two-state solution is rooted in two persistent truths: first, that two separate national communities, each with a different language, historical grievance, sense of identity in the wider world, and dominant religious culture, have been squeezed by tragic events into a single small space. Each wants “self-determination” (though anachronistic meanings for this term may be a part of the problem). Second, that a majority on each side prefers some form of compromise to a fight to the finish.
FULL STORY Confederation: The one possible Israel-Palestine solution (New York Review of Books)
AND SEE
Hope fades for a two-state solution. Is there another path to Middle East peace? (Guardian)
BARAK RAVID: Trump may present peace plan even if Palestinians won't negotiate (Axios)
Photo: Protesters hold placards during a demonstration in Tel Aviv (Reuters)
