Those things are all safeguards I support because I do NOT have complete trust in everyone.

So I have no right to expect Palestinians or Israelis to completely trust each other.

I think the greatest problem is this:

If the Israeli PM tells the Israeli military to not attack the West Bank, the Israeli military will not attack the West Bank.

If the Palestinian PM tells people not to attack Israel, some group of Palestinians may still attack Israel.

So what is his promise to not attack Israel worth?

So what will the Israelis pay for that promise?

If not, what happened to this faith in people?

If so, why do the Palestineians have cause to believe they have been treated unjustly?

Or do you just think that we should have faith in the Palestineians, not people in general?

Ok. Everyone agrees that the current situation is terrible. But how do you create a one state solution in which Jews can still live safely?

That question might equally applied to the Palestinans, given the ratios David cites above!

I suppose it all centres on what you beleive is the cause of the violence. If you think that it is due to an anti-semitism inherent in Palestinan peoples and culture, then one would be right to be worried for Jews in a single state. But if you assume, alternatively, that the violence stems from the occupation, the inequality, and the general injustice of the status quo, then its reasonable to assume this kind of violence and hatred would dissipate once a single-state solution is implemented.

Clearly, negotiations can only progress when founded on the latter belief.

The South African constitution incorporates explicit references to the divisions of the past, and guaranteed that the Afrikaans would have parity with the myriad ethnicities in that country.

In the Times today, Peter Watson makes the case for secularism. Surely the secular route seems to be the most sensible option on paper, and (to my mind) a more morally coherent position.

By contrast, the Two State solution, while apparently more likely in the current political climate, seems like a fudge. It seems, like Nick’s comment above, to convey an ultimate lack of faith in people. It fails to provide any inspirational or aspirational ideal upon which a country should be founded. The land of Abraham can surely do better.

How would this solution have prevented/solved the Iran-Iraq war? Or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Or made Iraqi Kurds, Sunnis and Shites happier with each other?

To name but three.