How important is the two-state solution?

OP-ED: After Cairo, It's Clinton Time, By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, New York Times, June 6, 2009

Good sensible argument from Friedman re: the need to finish off strongly on Iraq vice wasting effort on the 2-state solution. The latter just isn't in the cards this term, while the former is crucial to the U.S., to Obama, and to the region's stability.

(Thanks: Dan Hare)

Comments

[Dean Turnbloom]

It's a pity Friedman couldn't have been as pragmatic during the Bush Administration.

[William R. Cumming]

Arguendo? Does it make any difference to Israel if Iraq is three states a decade down the role with Iran including Basra area?

[Louis Heberlein]

We need the same approach in California.

[hof1991]

Regaining some credibility as a partially impartial player in the region is a step in grand strategy. It makes the term two move on Palestine possible, the approach to Iran easier sooner rather than later, helps extricate us from combat missions in Iraq, etc. Dealing with these issues as separate tracks is reductionist and gets in the way of the broad progress that is the only kind that will last.