Last week I posted a piece called "The Two-State Solution on Its Deathbed." I argued that the pervasiveness of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, combined with the realities of Israeli politics, left only a slim and rapidly diminishing chance that a two-state solution could be salvaged.
Apparently I was being too optimistic. Only hours after I posted the piece, the two-state solution was pronounced dead by someone who knows a lot more about this than I do--Gideon Levy, columnist for Haaretz, a.k.a. "the New York Times of Israel." Levy wrote, "It's time to raise the white flag, to admit publicly that the two-state solution has been foiled." It was doomed, he says, by "the plundering settlers, the establishment that embraces them and the majority of Israelis, who do not lift a finger to stop them."
In Levy's view, this leaves only one long-term option--the "one-state solution," as the boundaries of Israel are officially expanded to encompass the occupied territory. Levy notes the irony that all those who have abetted the settler movement will have thus advanced a goal traditionally associated with Israel's extreme left.
Actually, though, there are two versions of the one-state solution, one on the left and one on the far right. In the left-wing version, Palestinians are given the vote and full citizenship, and Jews and Arabs live (one hopes) harmoniously in a greater Israel that, given demographic trends, would presumably feature a majority Arab population before long. In the far-right version, the boundaries of Israel are officially expanded but Palestinians who live beyond the 1967 "green line" are never given the vote, so you wind up with an apartheid state.