Peace in the Middle East remains in the distant future.

Those calling for immediate peace forget previous failed efforts.

Middle East peace first needs a period NOT attacking each other, neither directly nor indirectly through proxy's.

Such a decade, may enable smaller agreements, such as to promote trade, communication, reduce criminal activity, even movement of people across borders.

After a decade of such, enough trust for peace to be discussed may exist, a decade without conflict can encourage some expectation words of each other might be trusted.

Giant leaps usually more difficult than small steps.

.

Of course, Polpak, of course, if only the side that holds all the cards have a genuine desire to make peace, one that involves giving up a lot of what they had gained by force and cunning manipulations.

Until then, I can't help thinking about how the Southern States in the US managed to continue to treat the freed blacks as sub-human for another 100 years or so after they had lost the civil war over wanting to keep their slaves. For them ownership is just one tool of oppression. their economic and social institutions were quite able to be used to keep the blacks in their impoverished state.

Good intentions ladled out with honey sweet potions may not do any good in the end.

Alon Ben-Meir,

I must disagree with your fundamental premise that:

"Both sides understand that the general parameters of a sustainable peace agreement must rest on a two-state solution ...."

(Though many of the opposing 'protagonists' also appear to be firmly of that view. My reasons for differing are as follows.)

I have a Palestinian neighbour who believes that the firm wish and hope of many of his fellows is a one-State, shared future.
I find his view compelling, and most worthy of detailed contemplation, based on the following:

Both Islam and Judaism are supposed to be, and generally fervently held to be, peaceful and ethical religions/belief-systems; but what is missing is 'humanity', mutual 'respect', and an appropriate regard for the pursuit of peace and harmony in the world.

We are regularly assured that the majority of both Muslims and Jews are 'moderate' and 'peace-loving'. Note, the 'majority'.
Therefore, the problem is a 'radical' and excessively extremist fundamental minority on both sides, who, in this age of co-existence and tolerance, should not be allowed to shape the world for the far less vocal 'moderate' and 'considerate' majority.

Certainly, as the author points out, 'fear' and 'mistrust' are major deterrents to the attainment of a peaceful compromise solution - of a shared and peaceful single state which could easily provide very effective co-existence for all.

We live in an age of political and individual 'correctness', of tolerance and multiculturalism, of diaspora, mutual-respect and 'inclusiveness' - a golden age of possibility, and of primary concern for global peace, harmony and sustainability.

It is time that the greater good was truly held paramount for all, for the ultimate well-being both of humanity and of our planetary home - in individual, state, national and global affairs.

We must learn to 'love our neighbour', for all else is chaos and interminable misery.

Saltpetre

Given the circumstances and the history that has plagued the minds of the stridently aggrieved on both sides, an interlude in the form of a two state solution might at least be a tangible means of growing "humanity and respect...". With maturity, a one state solution might be possible one day. But that might be like asking for peace on earth and goodwill to all mankind.

As for your Palestinian neighbour's aspirations,it reminds me of a well recognised leader in the Vietnamese community (who had quickly re-established his high status-high income profession in Australia)in the early 1980s. He told me to expect a diasporic uprising to get rid of the commies in Vietnam, hinting those in the US as key operatives. Recently he told me that his lingering days will be devoted to the sovereignty of Vietnam in the face of China's claim on the disputed offshore islands.

Diasporic revolutionaries can dream, be nostalgic, and be very brave indeed. Some will mellow with age and the acceptance over time of the reality of history.

Idealism is fine. But practical steps are unavoidable. If two prize dogs got at each other's throats,continually at every opportunity, something has to be done to restore a semblence of "humanity".

Chek,

I understand and appreciate what you are saying. Quite rightly, a two-state solution appears the only immediate course, but has just so many proverbial 'knobs' on it! No-one wants to cede territory, and the boundaries have been so re-drawn as to make their redefinition - to suit any former or amenable 'arrangement' - a near impossibility.

Alternatively: God (Allah, JH, and, as by any other given name) loves and also censures all, equally; there are no 'chosen', none 'special' none more or less 'worthy' than any other - only 'people'.
Imagine a near-idyllic world-view - of universal respect for humanity and for the wider environment. Such a view is propounded (at least to degree) in COP, by the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and many scientists and visionaries, but thus far appears to enjoy only 'token' implementation or adherence. But, as all great movements require a first step, what better as such a first step than the 'unification' of Israel/Palestine? What an achievement and what an example that would be for the world - for the lion to lay down with the lamb, of swords being sheathed, miscarriages forgiven, and of 'peacemakers' being truly 'blessed'.

Alternatively,if leaders and luminaries do not strive unceasingly to achieve global harmony, tranquility, sustainability and equality of opportunity, it can never become a reality - and that would be, in my view, a miscarriage of the highest order. (Such may also deny any possibility whatever of realising the true meaning for our existence - if there really is any).

I live in hopes of a better world, and the movement has to start somewhere - but I'm not holding my breath.

Saltpetre

Yes, we must have hope.

But for that to amount to anything we need to take the first step. That might be for instance to start a movement in Australia to stop our politicians behaving like bribed up sleepers of the Israeli government and its lobbies in our Parliaments and at the United Nations. Bob Carr has done the right thing, but his Labor Party heavies, mostly indentured to union bosses or current and ex-union bosses seem to be entirely seduced by the trappings of office - siding always it would seem with the "winners" who offer them lollies.

As I recall, South Africa's stranglehold on the blacks got eroded, over time, by the public disaffection of other Commonwealth nations. Malcolm Frazer did the right thing there. Mass movements, like rallies against the visiting Springboks in Australia, will gather momentum once our career politicians show moral leadership.

We must have hope.

But in a situation that is dire, we need to take a firm first step. A two state solution could be crafted to work if the big players in the West should decide to stop indulging the Israeli hawks or continue to use them to destablise the Middle East for the benefit of Uncle Sam or its military-industrial economy. When that day comes small fries like Australia would find other less dishonourable past-times. This time the Aussie thrill seekers are unlikely to create another great delusion about our birth as an International Power, given that the myth of ANZAC as the birth of Australia as a nation has had a solid hiding this year.