The problem with all the back and forth arguments about the 'best' or 'realistic ' solution to the 'conflict' is lack of reality check. How is a 2 state solution going to be implemented on the basis of the +/- 1967 borders with 500k settlers in situ. How are the Palestinians in the west bank and the Gaza strip going to have free and unencumbered access to each other without violating the security interests of Israel?. A one state solution, while attractive, on paper, would negate the very premises of the Zionist dream, and will be a prescription for ethnic and religious strife. I believe that only a federative solution is viable as it allows both national to live together while keeping apart in certain important aspect. More importantly, the Palestinians will have equal rights and opportunities. Clearly, the defense of the new federation should be managed by the Israelis who have the know how and experience, although Palestinians should be encouraged to participate as it would be their obligation to defend the federation as well. To implement such a political solution demands bright minds, willing partners, and unconventional thinking.
British foreign secretary: There is no immediate threat to Europe from ISIS bases in Libya (Reuters)
from the article: The one-state reality vs. a two-state solution: A reply to Akiva Eldar