The problem with Israel and Palestine, however, is that both sides will have to make huge, but fair and necessary, concessions to become a single state. The Palestinians will have to give up aspirations of total territorial sovereignty, but will gain the right to have a voice in the government of the country that affects theirs lives the most: Israel. The Israelis will have to essentially redefine what it means to be an Israeli. Naturally, there's a lot that could go wrong and the sentences above fail to encompass anything close to a complete scope of the tradeoffs, especially in the integration of the two economies.

But if you can give me an alternative that's not the two state solution, which seems to be going nowhere, I'd really be interested in hearing it. My basic instinct is that Israel and Palestine have been a single state since 1967, just an unbelievably disfunctional one. It's much easier to go along with a 42 year trend of economic, infrastructal, and demographic development than to buck it.

Look at the way Hamas and Fatah behave. You think Israelis are going to have a fun time being outnumbered 3 to 1 in a country run by nationalist or Islamic nationalist Arabs? Or maybe the EU would be willing to take 6 million Jewish refugees?

It is this fear that led to the partition of India between "Muslim" Pakistan and "Hindu" India. Politicians on both sides ofcourse are to be blamed a great deal for fear mongering is the easiest tool to win votes.

It is great that you went to see and understand the conflict first hand. What you seemed to have learned, perhaps, is that the Jews are a semitic people who have similar language to the Arabs. However, your proposed solution "a one state" solution is unworkable. It is unworkable for many reasons. One is history. Even before 1947, even before the holocaust, when the Peel Commission tried to resolve the conflict in the 1930's they suggested a partition. That is because the violence of the majority Arabs against the Jews, who were then a minority, was rampant and barely controlled by the British. A second reason is current example. Lebanon is a de facto multi-religious state (one in which everyone is nominally "arab".) Yet, in Lebanon, a horrific civil war occurred for 15 years. The only thing that prevents civil war again is the fact that one side (Shia Muslims) have access to overwhelming arms compared to other sides. Thus, they have de facto rule. Furthermore, civil wars due to religious differences are not just a ME phenomenon. Look at the former Yugoslavia. Do you want to try a one state solution there again? Lastly, a one state solution is an externally imposed solution that ignores the desires (per public opinion polls) of both Israelis and Palestinians. Isn't it the kind of cultural imperialism that people like you (I mean well-meaning Westerners) are supposed to be shunning these days???