The United Nation’s rep here seems to prefer the use of violent language.  Here he is in a Reuter’s item yesterday

Israeli settlements on occupied land wanted by the Palestinians may have already killed a possible two-state solution, said the United Nations Middle East envoy on Thursday as he suggested the UN Security Council should take action on the peace process…”Illegal settlement activity simply cannot be reconciled with the objective of a negotiated two-state solution and may kill the very possibility of reaching peace on the paradigm of two states for two peoples,” outgoing UN Middle East envoy Robert Serry told the UN Security Council.

“I frankly do not know if it is already too late,” he said.

Serry also said that if the Palestinians follow through on a pledge to halt security coordination with Israel then it could be the “final nail in the coffin” of the Oslo peace accords of the mid-1990s.

I am not for a two-state solution which is not really a solution, as it does not address the reasons for Arab opposition and hostility to the very idea of a Jewish state and the renewed soverignty of the the Jewish people. Hamas doesn’t even what a Jew present here in our national homeland.

But whatever, we didn’t “kill” anything and for sure, not a two-state solution that has been for the taking for the Arabs since, well, at least 1937 and the partition plan.  And I think the separation of Transjordan from the Mandate in 1922 and the postponement of the Jewish right of “close settlement” in the area and subsequently limited to the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the area that is, lo and behold!, the very area of Judea and Samaria at present.

Nevertheless, a two-state resolution is still in the offering if we include Jordan in the geographical parameters. The country was past of Palestine.  It asserts influence and power in Jerusalem via its role in administering the Temple Mount.  It has in the past and could in the future provide a route for the political expression for the Arabs-who-refer-to-themselves-as-‘Palestinians’.

But Serry has his own parameters:

He said if the Israelis and the Palestinians are not ready to resume negotiations but show they both still believe in a two-state solution then the international community should consider presenting the parameters for the peace process.  “This may be the only way to preserve the goal of a two-state solution, in the present circumstances,” he said.

That sounds like pressure to be applied, instead of right and reason.

That’s no way to solve anything.

^