re: #20 Charles
There’s a flipside to a two-state solution.

If the “second” state (i.e., what would be known as Palestine) decided to become aggressive, Israel would no longer have to treat the problem like it was a civilian problem.

I.e., attacks could be considered acts of war, rather than acts of terrorism.

(This is me playing devil’s advocate, for the purposes of discussion. I’m curious what people think about the two state ‘solution’, given the implications militarily. I.e., would it make a difference if it were a “state” attacking rather than just “militants”?)