Every time I feel I ready to dismiss Thomas Friedman completely he says something I agree with, just as I am about to toss him on the ash heap. Today on the News Hour he was talking about the effects of the wall being built and (although his logic was a bit tortured) it led him to conclude that what is coming in Israel is the "one state solution". That is, Palestinians will stop looking for a state and just start demanding the franchise in Israel.
Personally, I have always thought that this is the way to go. The Israeli government should allow significant right of return, compensate those displaced persons whose land has been taken or property rights diminished, go through a truth and reconciliation process, declare a single state, change the flag and then bend over backwards to make Palestinians full citizens so that by the time Jews are overwhelmed demographically, Arabs and Jews can trust each other.
I just don't see another answer. A state of Palestine can't really compensate the Palestinians for their losses of land inside Israel and the two state concept keeps alive the notion that Jews and Arabs can't live together. Zionists and Arabs can't live together. Jihadists and Jews can't live together. Jews and Arabs can live together.
Compared to the horrors of Rwanda or even Guatemala, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict does not actually represent that much outright crime against humanity for the parties to reconcile themselves to. It was a war but it was nothing like Korea or Vietnam or even the recent Balkan wars, for example. If not for religion and foreign involvement, it would be a relatively small war in world terms. I think it should not be fetishized.