Ackerman wonders:

Most observers expect Clinton to sound decidedly reconciliatory notes in her AIPAC address. Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who works with Atallah at the New America Foundation, encouraged Clinton to pivot to productive moves on peace negotiations especially the presentation of the administration’s own peace plan. “Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has often drawn the analogy between ending the conflict and cutting off the tail of a dog – in other words, you do both in one chop, not incremental snips,” Levy said. “When it is ready to lead rather than be led, the administration should place a clear choice of an implementation plan for two states in front of Israel and stick to that plan.” Levy added that Netanyahu’s embrace of settlement expansion “may strengthen American resolve to put forward such a plan.”

I suspect that the current state of Israeli politics makes a direct US plan the only way forward. But David Remnick's question remains:

Does there exist a Netanyahu 2.0, a Nixon Goes to China figure who will act with an awareness that demographic realitiesthe growth not only of the Palestinian population in the territories but also of the Arab and right-wing Jewish populations in Israel propermake the status quo untenable as well as unjust?

I think not. But we'll see, won't we?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.