To recognize the reality that my statement merely reflects. The two-state solution is dead, and the sooner America’s top diplomat recognizes it, the better, because that would make it possible to consider an alternative solution that could lead to a real peace, instead of yet another photo op in between explosions. I had hoped that Tillerson would be that diplomat, but apparently not. He’ll ultimately have to get in the line with Hillary, Lurch, and all the other failed diplos who backed the two-state “solution”. It’s a long, long line, which uses its length in order to justify its members’ fallacious thinking.
Here's what has me confused. Netanyahu says he still wants a two state solution, except during national elections when he doesn't, and then when he wins he says he really does.
Which one is it?
Is he telling the truth when he says "yes" to the two states? If so, he needs to seriously work with his friends to that end --- even if it means a halt to settlement building.
If Netanyahu comes out and declares a two state solution is "dead" ... and he will continue to build settlements, then he needs to offer an alternative.
The world has been working toward a two-state solution --with Israel's approval and support-- for 50 years. If Israel wants something else ... let's hear the proposal.
Is this unreasonable?
“I think that’s the dream everyone is in pursuit of. Whether it can be a reality remains to be seen.”
He dismissed the two state solution as unreality. I prefer government that tries to avoid war. Sometimes it can’t be avoided but those times are fortunately rare.
Peace through superior firepower doesn’t work there. The rest of the middle east doesn’t want them, either. I feel badly for them, though not that badly. If they wanted the murders to stop, they would stop. Hamas doesn’t recruit in a vacuum.