Share
The New York Times Subscription
Let’s play the Israel-Palestine impossibility game. It’s timely because the two-state peace for which I have long argued is now widely deemed unattainable. The answer, as one of the most thoughtful observers of the conflict, Peter Beinart, has recently argued, must be one state with equal rights for Jews and Palestinians, “a Jewish home that is not a Jewish state.”
Beinart, the editor at large of Jewish Currents and a longtime two-state advocate, changed his mind. Yes, it’s still possible. He gave up a core conviction, based on the evidence. I salute that rare capacity in an America of declaimed certainties, even as I disagree.
The impossibility game goes like this: You list the reasons that a two-state outcome is impossible, before listing the reasons that a one-state solution is impossible, and then you decide which of the two is less impossible. As you do so, set aside the fact that history is a catalog of “impossible” events. Lastly, draw conclusions that reflect the enigma of personal conviction.
By Roger Cohen | 31 July 2020
RELATED TOPICS:
Unlocking the Secrets to Fresno State’s Superb Baseball Season
8 hours ago
Get a 3D First Look at Merced’s High-Speed Rail Station Design
10 hours ago
California Court to Decide on Transgender Ballot Measure Wording
10 hours ago
Rare House Vote Sees Ukraine, Israel Aid Advance as Democrats Join Republicans
12 hours ago
Full Jury and 6 Alternates Seated in Trump’s Hush Money Trial
12 hours ago
Man Sets Himself on Fire Outside Trump Hush Money Trial Court