opinion piece, echoed in a similar column by the Times’ Tom Friedman) view the Palestinian quest for recognition not as a threat to Israel’s survival but as an opportunity to “reaffirm support for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of two states for two peoples” In other words, rather than fight the UN recognition vote as a unilateral Palestinian assault, why not constructively engage with it in an effort to move the ball forward?"} 5f:{"position":4,"content":"Israel’s defensive posture is in significant measure motivated by a deeply-held unease about its survival as a Jewish homeland, threatened by the specter of the Palestinian refugee ‘right of return.’ In a recent discussion with the Israel Policy Forum, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor underlined the return of Palestinian refugees to the Palestinian state, and not to Israel, as the “crux of the matter” – more important than acknowledgement of the “Jewish state.” On the Palestinian side, no such concession – certainly not in advance of negotiations – is forthcoming. But is this critical issue really irresolvable?"} 60:{"position":5,"content":"Seemingly not. Bernard Avishai’s important N.Y. Times February 7 article, “The Israel Peace Plan that Still Could Be,” reminds us that the problem was nearly solved in 2008 by Israel’s then-prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Both agreed on the principle that a certain number of Palestinians should return, limited in a way that preserves Israel’s distinction as a state with a Jewish majority but that respects the rights of the Arab minority. Only the specific numbers weren’t finalized. And in a July 5 piece in the Forward, Eric Alterman notes that the recently revealed “Palestine Papers” demonstrate a “remarkable willingness of the Palestinian leadership to compromise on fund

Peace: So far and yet so close

If the issue of Palestinian "right of return" is resolved, the rest will follow naturally.