The two-state solution is dead. The corpse is there but there is lots of denial and hope that it will return to life if only we get the right doctors-politicians and the right peace plan-prescription. All the while the corpse is giving out such a stench that no words, however flowery, can cover up – that is for those who have eyes to see.

What do you suggest?

Any places where settlers live that will become part of Palestine will be evacuated. Any places where settlers live that will become part of Israel will remain.

Israel evacuated the Sinai in its entirety as part of the Camp David accords. Israel evacuated Gaza in its entirety in 2005. Israel most recently removed the most extreme and odious settlers from parts of Hebron.

The most miserable conditions are now in Gaza, where there is not a single Israeli.

I think we are reverting back to what has been the case for most of the Arab-Israeli conflict. For the majority of the time, the Arab/Palestinian position was explicitly eliminationist. A couple of Arab nations have made their peace with Israel. That has been good for the region, although there is still endemic racism and hatred in those Arab countries.

Briefly, the PLO made talks of possibly recognizing Israel, although even throughout the Oslo accords it never really fully committed to that. And since 2000, even after Arafat spit in Bill Clinton's face when he tried to broker peace, the parties have theoretically talked about it.

But the "demise of the two state solution" is not really anything new. It's just the Arabs returning to form. Ultimately, that doesn't affect Israel or Zionism. Israel exists, and thrives despite its racist neighbors. The lack of a credible two-state solution is largely due to Arab and Palestinian rejectionism, and it is the Palestinians that suffer the most.

So what happens? There are plenty of more options. Control of the territories where Israelis have not settled could revert to Jordan and Egypt. Or we could have an international protectorate (although it would have to have some accountability to Israelis in case it failed). Or we could have a series of "United Palestinian Emirates" (I suppose the Palestinians in the Gulf) could have been called "Bantustans" but they in fact have done quite well). Or you could have a solution like what happened in India and Pakistan, where groups migrated to their respective territories (Indeed, you already had the near complete expulsion of Jews from Arab lands).

The demography with respect to the West Bank and Gaza is a non-issue. It really doesn't matter if it's 100 or 100 million people under occupation, they are entitled to the rights to which they are entitled. And conversely, the occupier is entitled to take the same actions necessary to protect itself whether it's 100 or 100 million. Israel was no more or less democratic when it occupied fewer Palestinians as opposed to more Palestinians.

In any event, those who take glee in the death of the two-state solution make the mistake in thinking that this means the death of Israel. Israel continues to do quite well for itself and its citizens. The failure of a two state solution is really a tragedy, but not for the Israelis.

From there, it should be explained to the viewer where exactly these "settlers" come from, who pays for them (American taxpayers pay a large part), and why they choose to come. If this were any other religion, specifically Christian, these people would be made out to be nutcases, religious fanatics, even without directly saying so. But the viewer wasn't exactly left with that impression (I think they're religious fantatics, but I don't know that that impression was left with viewers at large). Again, without sufficient background, which the piece did not provide, viewers are still left in the dark as to where exactly these "settlers" come from and, more importantly, the function they serve Israel's elite in the grand scheme of things.

Then, a really good report would liken these folks to the poor Jewish victims of WWII, who were likewise used in a similar fashion by the Zionist leaders in order to fulfill their larger agenda. Alright, now I'm just dreaming…

Ahh, no. A military force that illegally occupies foreign lands is only entitled to get the f-ck off the bits that don't belong to it. That, or give those whom it occupies the vote, etc., etc.

Israel has refused the former. Ye reap what ye sow.

"The Arabs returning to form." Replace "Arabs" with "Jews" and see how Joshua reacts. It's all "Arab and Palestinian rejectionism." The Arabs are the racists. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Of course, the enlightened among us recognize that exactly the opposite is true. We know Zionist propaganda when we read it. Thank you, Joshua, for keeping us on our toes.

I do see Israel renouncing sovereignty over the land, and the settlers remaining as Palestinian citizens, if they chose.

My semi-coherent take:
The first step is getting them all to sit down at the same table. Final-status negotiations must be started, without the usual preconditions nonsense, between Israel and all Arab entities with which it is in conflict. The tough issues, e.g. Jerusalem or how many states there should be, should not be on the table to start. Putting that stuff front and center at the beginning is in my opinion a sure path to failure. It is America's duty to get them talking, even if it's only about how good the coffee and pastries are, and 'have you tried the lentils at that little restaurant down on whatever street?'.

The obvious next question is who will represent the Palestinians. They have already worked out their sovereignty issues. They had elections: Fatah lost and Hamas one. Hamas must be permitted to re-instate their Prime Minister, and new elections must be held to replace former President Abbas, whose term expired on 9 January. Perhaps a compromise could be reached where new general elections could be held, although I think it highly unlikely that the result will be any better for Fatah. Palestinian negotiators must be seen by their people as legitimate representatives invested with sovereign authority. The Israelis want to deal with puppets: the time for discarding those infantile daydreams is long past.

What happens next? I don't know, but I do know that there will be no one asking 'what happens next?' if the first step of legitimate negotiators sitting down at the same table is never taken. The resolution of the conflict is a primary security issue for the United States: President Obama should use whatever means are necessary to get the Israelis to the table.