To the editor:
Re Ian Lustick's op-ed, "Two-State Illusion": As Lustick points out, there was no thought to a "two-state" solution (really a three-state solution, since the Arab state of Jordan also exists within Palestine) between 1948 and 1967. The reason was the Arabs had no interest because their goal was, and remains, to destroy Israel, as both Arafat and Abbas proved that by rejecting the establishment of another Palestinian Arab state in virtually all the disputed territory.
What makes Lustick think that who cannot agree on living separately in two states would live together peacefully in one state?
If Lustick is correct that two states are not feasible, then the alternative would obviously not be one state, but would have to be either something less than a state for the Palestinian Arabs or their confederation with Jordan and/or Egypt.
Any solution, of course, would involve some compromise by all parties regarding the allocation of the disputed territories.
Sincerely,
Alan Stein