Response to Antony Lowenstein

Accepting realities

Critics of Antony Loewenstein (Comment, 18/11) dismiss a twostate solution as untenable, and one state as fanciful. With no other alternative the future is grim – chronic violence and conflict and increased risk of catastrophic escalation.

The global community cannot just accept that, and must acknowledge the following realities: For all the shortcomings of its creation, the State of Israel is here to stay and must be supported; Palestinians are not going to leave; there is no possibility of peace between Palestinians who deny the right of Israel to exist, and Israelis who rely on biblical texts to claim ‘‘all the land’’; both sides will have to accept unpalatable, compromising outcomes.

A two-state solution seems the most realistic solution. That would require withdrawal of settlers from the West Bank and/or major, balanced redrawing of boundaries, and a new, supported authority to manage a new Palestinian state. Without a unified, empowered United Nations that challenge is extraordinary.

Norman Huon, Port Melbourne

A common bond

Antony Loewenstein is correct, the two-state solution is no longer viable. It was destroyed with the tacit support of the world who failed to speak out while Palestinians were deprived of land, liberty and life over decades. To talk about two states while Palestinians are dying in their thousands in Gaza, while they are locked into an open air prison with no human rights is despicable. He is also correct when he calls for a one-state solution. Palestinians and Jews don’t hate each other, they both hate injustice, intolerance, hatred, they share a common bond. It could work if both were treated equally.

Marion Harper, Reservoir