It does not have to be either/or in the Middle East. Given the present mindset of Israelis and Palestinians, it would seem far more practical (and practicable) for a bi-national single state to be reached VIA a two-state stepping stone. In other words, two states, but only as a temporary measure. Of course there is no way of knowing or estimating how long this would take. But at least this takes into account how Israelis and Palestinians generally feel about each other right now...perhaps best characterized as a complete lack of trust.

Though a family farm company director, an interest still made me do an intensive study of power balance strategy towards the end of the Cold War.

I thus might say that the most informative statement since WW2 was the one by Henry Kissinger that to allow little new Israel to go militarily nuclear would not only upset the balance of power in the Middle East for years to come, but would surely cause a dangerous increase in bitterness and hatred from Arab nations over those years.

Making the situation worse from an academic point of view was Israel's treatment of Mordecai, who from a philosophical viewpoint, should go down in history as one with great courage enough to back statements as declared by Kissinger, as well as revealing the gutlessness of the time, not only shown by the UN but also by both the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Certainly the pride that an old soldier like myself felt following the rhetoric from the new UN during the Korean War, is now buried in the shock and bitterness resulting from a world that has allowed America, just one nation to rule our globe and making such a mess of it by breaking laws that have also been proven from the trials and errors of both our religous and philosophical histories.

It is thus as Immanuel Kant declared:

From now on we cannot trust neither one nation nor even one man under God to rule this world in the future, but preferably a Federation of Nations.

From which of course grew the League of Nations and our present United Nations, but failed mostly by single strong nations like Britain, and later the US, letting single nation characters like Condoleeza Rice move in trying to preach the tone of global justice.

Yawn - Anthony monotonously repeats his one message again. He is right that some studies demonstrate that some leaders of some organisations are more hawkish than their public. He refuses to acknowledge that in relation to that public, he is more extreme than those leaders. Each of those surveys, like the surveys within Israel, repeatedly affirm the broad publics' preference and desire for an autonomous Palestinian state to coexist with Israel. This has been consistently the case since at least Rabin was prime minister. Lowenstein is part of this majority. For some reason he feels a need to use an extremely limited and dated conception of the ideology of Zionism which neatly supports his perspective. Zionism has never been univocal, as he conveniently maintains. Like most isms, it is a dynamic term that continues to change over time. A serious article demands that his legitimate voice, while a minority voice, is in serious dialogue with the other voices out there. The danger of the internet is that we selectively listen and read only to those voices that agree with ourselves. Anthony quotes these same voices incessently in every publication. Sadly, his argument remains one dimensional, saddled with an ideological agenda that prevents his intellect from grappling with the complexity that is real. The majority of Jews and Israelis (Jews and non-Jews) continue to prefer and desire an independent Palestinian state. All they demand in return is that Hamas, Hizbullah, Abbas, and those like Lowenstein want it too.

'Israel’s ongoing colonisation of the West Bank has made a contiguous and independent Palestinian impossible.'

'...its illegal West Bank settlements and blatantly stealing Palestinian land in the process.'

Hummmm. So in a single state presumably majority rule will prevail ... as it does in democracies ... and the single biggest crux preventing peace and understanding will be solved simply, overnight? Or will the illegal settements simply be removed?

In a two state solution ... well that won't happen until Israel reognises it must return this land to the original owners and remove the settlers.

Oh and what about the matter of he right of return?

If I had a son with this view I would be so disappointed. All the time and effort to raise a Jew in the world today and this is what comes out of it. I'll keep shaking my head until you get over it. Get over it.

All who are looking for the simple solution by the establishment of the state of Palestine under a jint government of the Hamas and PLO are entirely blind to the powerbrokers of the region and it is not Israel,strangely enough but Iran,Syria and the all-powerful Hisbollah who are the de facto rulers of Lebanon.The embryonic state of Palestine will always be the pawn in the game of power politics.It will have no measure of independence other than what the players agree to give it or better still to appear to give it.Hamas will always stand for the elimination of Israel because of the way in which the Americans manipulated the UN into bringing about the creation of the state of Israel which I still believe was a travesty of justice even though I hastily add that I detest and even hate the Hisbollah and the racist and bigoted Islamists in the region.As I do the Zionists who rule the USA today!

I see no hope of averting the prolonged agony of the middle East short of a thorough cleansing of the area.

socratease