Haaretz – Adapted

Whoever supports the one-land solution from both parties; left and right, supposes that the two-state solution has vanished. However, it cannot be so, in my opinion, for the simple fact that those who advocate a one-land solution have never actually given two-state solution a chance to succeed. All relevant agreements were written in a way that was intended to make them futile. 

“Peace Agreement” refers to expanded borders, economic cooperation, free movement for Palestinian workers, and Al-Quds being under joint sovereignty. This agreement requires steps to “build Trust.” However, it is impossible to do so between the occupier and the one who is under the occupation. When there is one entity that is more powerful than the other, sovereign relations will emerge, and one cannot expect consensual relations. Moreover, neither we nor the Palestinians can be trusted. This is because of what we have done against them, as we have stolen their land. In brief, if we want to survive, we must demand two radical states in place of a peace accord.

The preference for the radical two-state solution means clarifying and lowering the expectations of the two sides. It also means to start building trust and confronting the resistance and pressure groups. This radical solution will allow resources to be devoted to the reconstruction of society, the state, and Israel's standing in the international community.

Separation (two-state resolution) is not thought to be exciting, yet this is what is necessary to do in order to stop violence. Separation will allow both parties to focus entirely on their internal issues and create harmony and peace until their anger has subsided. If we want to reach a peace deal, we must do so from the standpoint of two distinct and coherent entities. The more we slowdown in separation, the more peace we hope will be delayed.