WASHINGTON, DC - The steady march of settlements, the rightward shift in Israeli politics, the growing sense that a conflict-ending peace agreement is impossible - all these things are feeding some pundits' impulse to declare the death of the two-state solution as a means of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But what are the alternatives?

Some support a "one-state" solution. Anti-Zionists and some post-Zionists imagine a Palestinian-majority, secular, democratic state; some Israeli right-wingers envision Israel annexing the West Bank, using ploys to disenfranchise its Palestinian residents and finally getting rid of Gaza.

Both visions are illusions. No Israeli government will dissolve the State of Israel. And Israel will never be able to justify, even to its closest allies, formalising its own version of apartheid in the West Bank while turning Palestinians in Gaza into a futureless, stateless people imprisoned on the edge of the Sinai.

Others want to revive interest in the "make-the-Palestinians-someone-else's-problem" scenario, popular in Israel in the 1970s and 1980s with slogans like "Jordan is Palestine" and "Gaza is Egypt."

But this, too, is an illusion. Neither Egypt nor Jordan will willingly collude in killing the dream of Palestine. Neither will take on Palestinian populations that would almost certainly be destabilising, domestically and regionally. Neither will agree to Israel annexing East Jerusalem. And any effort by Israel to force the issue - by trying to dump Gaza in Egypt's lap and force parts of the West Bank on Jordan - would likely cost Israel its peace treaties with both countries.

Still others are adopting a "variation-on-the-status-quo" approach. They suggest that the current situation can be tweaked to be bearable for both sides, until Israelis and Palestinians evolve to the point where a permanent, conflict-ending agreement is possible.

This idea is disconnected from reality. The occupation cannot be neutered by clever arrangements. Any continuation of the status quo, however tweaked, will lead inevitably to more settlement expansion and a deepening of Israel's hold on East Jerusalem - to the point that even if the hoped-for sea changes someday occurred in both societies, there would be nothing left for the newly enlightened peoples to negotiate.

And finally, a growing number of Israelis are advocating the "no solution" paradigm. This is the view that there is simply no way of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Like the others, the "no solution" paradigm is an illusion - the product of the fact that the status quo is generally quite bearable for most Israelis. It reflects an almost child-like belief that the situation is static - that the status quo will endure even if Israel signals that it has no intention of ending the occupation. It assumes that Palestinians denied even the hope of a political horizon, will not abandon restraint and fight harder and more violently for their freedom. It assumes that the de facto détente that Israel has achieved with the Arab world won't crumble.

Because things generally seem to get worse in the Middle East, we often forget that they can also change for the better. Today, 32 years after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's 1978 visit to Jerusalem, which heralded the beginning of the land-for-peace era, and 17 years after the Oslo Accords, which signalled the birth of the two-state paradigm, there are those who argue that the land-for-peace and two-state paradigms are as fantastical as the others. They are wrong.

The two-state solution is still possible, even if it becomes harder to imagine - and to implement - with each passing day. And it is the only option that holds the promise of anything other than a permanent state of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and the Arab world. Israelis and Palestinians seem to recognise this - polls show that majorities of both populations still support the two-state solution, even as each doubts the seriousness of the other side's commitment to achieving it. Recent polling shows that majorities in the Arab world feel the same and recognise that if the two-state solution is gone, the most likely result will be intense conflict.

Those of us who care about the future of Israel and the Palestinians should be doing everything we can to capitalise on this realism and to realise the two-state solution, before the opportunity is truly lost. And we should be pushing back hard against casual talk about post-two-state paradigms - because the "alternatives" are just illusions.

This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author.

JERUSALEM - There many reasons to be pessimistic and at times to despair about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet even when things look hopeless, hope has a way of appearing, offering a vision of what can be rather than what is. Recently, I caught a glimpse of this hope in an unlikely place - the Israeli health care system.

In December, I went for a routine check-up with my family doctor in east Jerusalem and received the news everyone fears - I had cancer. What had seemed like a small lump in my neck was in fact thyroid cancer - devastating news for someone in his late 20's. I was quickly scheduled for surgery and given a date of May 17.

I immediately called my close friend Dr. Adel Misk, a Palestinian neurologist from east Jerusalem. Misk works in both Israeli and Palestinian hospitals, treating Palestinians and Israelis alike. He referred me to his colleague, Dr. Shila Nagar, a Jewish Israeli endocrinologist.

When Misk referred me to Nagar, he was not thinking in terms of Palestinians and Israelis, but rather in terms of which specialist could best treat me. He was not concerned about her religious practices or political opinions. He was only concerned about her track record as a doctor.

In the waiting room outside Nagar's office, I could not help but notice how many Palestinians were there. It did not bother them that she was Jewish, just like Misk's Jewish patients do not mind that he is Palestinian. All the stereotypes and fences of nationalist fervour were replaced with basic survival instincts.

I shared my thoughts about Israeli-Palestinian medical cooperation with Nagar, who told me a story of a Jewish friend of hers who had prostate problems. One night he was suffering from a painful blockage and went to the emergency room. The doctor on duty was an Arab woman. He was not pleased: It is doubly bad, he thought, an Arab and a woman. At first he refused to let her treat him; however, as the pain increased he changed his mind and called her in. Years later this Arab woman is his permanent doctor and a close friend. This personal experience was Nagar's example of how humanity (and physical necessity!) can overcome nationalism.

Fast forward to the day of my surgery. In an ironic twist of fate, here I was, a Palestinian journalist, draped in a hospital gown covered in Stars of David. I was stressed and fearful. Yet none of these emotions had to do with the nationality of my doctors or the pattern on my hospital gown. I was afraid of the surgery, and the possibility of not waking up again. However, when I was brought to the operating room, I was again given another dose of hope.

I had two surgeons, a Palestinian Arab and an Israeli Jew. The anaesthesiologist was an extremely experienced and competent Russian who joked with me until I fell asleep. My life was in the hands of an ideal team.

Meanwhile, my family waited outside. My wife and mother were both in tears, and later told me that a Jewish woman waiting for news of her relative's surgery comforted them.

In the midst of the hatred, anger and bitterness of the conflict, you can still find glimpses of goodness. Unfortunately this light often passes unnoticed. Yet it offers a practical example of the dream we all share, of a future where we can live safe and full lives without fear of injury.

My surgery went extremely well, and I recovered quickly. Moreover, through this painful experience, I caught a glimmer of hope in what seems like a hopeless environment. I have many criticisms of Israeli policies and politics, but the functioning universal health care system in Israel and its ability to separate politics from medicine earns my praise.

This is not to say that the system is perfect. Like any future Israel and Palestine might share, there is the possibility of getting distracted by issues of insurance and bureaucracy. However, when it matters most, Israeli and Palestinian doctors share a commitment to human life regardless of ethnicity, religion or nationality. Moreover, when it comes time to choose doctors, we base our choice on who is mostly likely to promote human life. If only we voted on the same basis!

Unfortunately, I had to experience the health care system personally before being able to appreciate this example of what Israelis and Palestinians can achieve. Despite the pain and suffering, I am grateful to have discovered such a hidden treasure of humanity at its best.

Republished from the Common Ground News Service (CGNews)

Source: Jerusalem Post, www.jpost.com

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House with President Obama, they were careful not to make fun of Obama, whose popularity is lower than his bow to the king of Saudi Arabia.

Netanyahu didn't ask Obama if he celebrates Ramadan, and Abbas didn't call  Obama a "Zionist hack." Those were good things that came out of the first face-to-face talks in two years. But they need to make sure to avoid creating misunderstandings as were created at Camp David, when Ehud Barak thought he offered a real peace deal to Yasser Arafat, and Arafat thought that peace was based on meeting face-to-face.

Misunderstandings, in fact, have been the major cause of most of the conflicts in the Middle East. Just look at the history

Writers often romanticize their subjects. At times they even manipulate their readers. A book - or any piece of writing for that matter - is meant to provide a sense of completion. Sociological explanations are offered to offset the confusion caused by apparent inconsistency in human behavior. At times a reader is asked to take a stance, or choose sides. 

This is especially true in writings which deal with compelling human experiences. In Behind the Wall: Life, Love and Struggle in Palestine (Potomac Books, 2010), Rich Wiles undoubtedly directs his readers, although implicitly, towards taking a stance. But he is unabashed about his moral priorities and makes no attempt to disguise his objectives.

Whatever prior commitments Netanyahu and Abbas made to their respective constituencies must be set aside throughout the duration of direct talks.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced earlier this week that he will consider Israel fully to blame for the collapse of the negotiations that were scheduled to commence yesterday, should it resume construction in the settlements. That statement could be seen as a reiteration of last week's reports by several news outlets that the PA intended to pull out of the peace talks with Israel if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fails to extend the partial West Bank settlement freeze when it expires on September 26.

Even as they were getting ready to commence with direct talks, the PA and Israel were both preparing for the day when they will pull out of them. The announcements made by Abbas and others in the PA were a response to information they had that, regardless of what Netanyahu may hint about a continuation to the freeze, he will not extend it in the end. Therefore, Abbas is already making it clear to the world why he plans to quit the talks at the end of the month.

Originally featured on The Washington Note

European High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy Baroness Catherine Ashton decided to head to China instead of participating in the Middle East stakeholders dinner hosted by President Obama in the Old Family Dining Room this week.