Donald Trump’s nominee for US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, holds some surprisingly noxious views, even toward his fellow Jews. Never mind halting Israeli settlement construction, Friedman hails Jerusalem as the “eternal, undivided capital of Israel.” In other words, he doesn’t believe in a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But while Friedman’s hawkish tendencies are sure to frustrate liberals in Washington and the rest of the West, the reality is that the two-state-solution ship sailed a long time ago.

Establishment policymakers in the West still believe that the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel is not only possible, but desirable. This stance conveniently ignores the fact that there’s little plausible chance a Palestinian state would survive. While I certainly wouldn’t want Friedman in charge of peace talks, he may inadvertently have pushed the reconciliation process in the right direction—the question is not whether we should implement a one-state solution, but rather what a potential one-state solution might look like.

At this point, the deck is stacked against any plan that attempts to separate Israelis and Palestinians into two distinct and equally sovereign countries. For one thing, there’s no settling the conflict without addressing the plight of Palestinian refugees currently living outside the borders of “Mandatory Palestine.” Whether they return and where they return to is a challenging question. Nor can we merely address the ongoing siege of Gaza or the cantonization of the West Bank without also considering the second-class citizenship many Israeli Palestinians suffer…

via Israel and Palestine won’t get a two-state solution under Donald Trump. But they may get something better — Quartz