One can question the concept of national self-determination. It means that a nation is set up up on the basis of a particular religious, ethnic or racial identity as the paradigm for the state. As a consequence those citizens of the state who do not share that identity are second-class citizens. If Australia became a Christian state a Jew would become a second-class citizen. There are too many countries in the world representing ethnic nationalism. These countries IMHO are incompatible with democracy. A democratic country must have separation of religion and state and make no distinctions among its citizens on the basis of religion or ethnicity. A Palestinian state would almost certainly be Muslim and ban Jews. It would be less democratic than Israel. Australia with chaplains in the public schools and tax money going to support sectarian schools in undemocratic. I favour democracy in Australia and everywhere else. Perhaps democracy is impractical at this time in Australia and the Middle East. If so let us recognise it.

Self-determination is based on a group united by bonds of religion or ethnicity. Democracy requires that the state not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or religion. Democracy and national self-determination are incompatible. Israel can be either a democracy or a Jewish state. It cannot be both.

A couple of questions:
For the author, why would a one-state solution mean racially stereotyping all Israeli Jews as inherently evil oppressors?
And for david f, why would a Palestinian state almost certainly be Muslim and ban Jews?
A united Palestine/Israel would be close enough to an even split between Muslims and Jews. After hopefully getting rid of the inherited weapons of mass destruction, why wouldn't they settle down and work out how to live together? They are, after all, brothers and sisters from one family with the shared faith of monotheism.

The author regards "continued demands for a so-called
Right of Return of 1948 refugees to Green Line Israel
rather than to the Palestinian Territories" as a
significant Palestinian barrier to peace.

Why shouldn't instead the Israeli refusal of this demand
be described as a significant Israeli barrier to peace?

The question is whether such a demand is reasonable or not.
And I have yet to understand how any decent human being can think
that it is reasonable that people should be expelled/excluded from
where they and their ancestors have always lived solely on account
of which religious group they belong to.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it has to be a duck?
If it acts, thinks and does like an oppressor nation, then it just has to be an oppressor nation!
All that seems to be missing, to the outside and entirely impartial international observer, is the Jackboots and SS insignia.
Rhrosty.

"This means racially stereotyping all Israeli Jews as an inherently evil oppressor nation,"

Similar to the way in which the White supremacist oligarchs of the South African apartheid regime were racially stereotyped--I'm appalled, it's just so unfair.
If Jews are members of a "race" then Zionism is, by inference, a racist ideology.

But Philip, Israel is a brutal occupying oppressor, the population doing the oppressing are jews, ergo the fact is not open to dispute that Israel proper is a jewish oppressor.