A permanent agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians will not be achieved without historic decisions by both parties. In his article in Al-Monitor, Nabeel Kassis was very courteous and forthright in clarifying to us that the Palestinians are a long way off from making the main historical adjudication that would allow for a permanent arrangement between the two peoples.

The differences separating Israelis and Palestinians are many — and understandable, especially in light of the past decade. Disputes over security arrangements and borders gain a different meaning given Hamas’ seizure of the Palestinian territory in Gaza and the collapse of stability in the Arab Middle East. Alongside these concerns are challenges that require 21st century solutions, including such complex issues as the future of hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in territory contested by both nations, some of them in communities where three generations of settlers have been living for close to half a century; control of and access to holy sites, including the holy basin of Jerusalem; the Palestinian diaspora and its future; the division of common natural resources; and differences over environmental standards.

As difficult as they may be, these disputes and others like them can be resolved. There is reasonable potential for a compromise that would be acceptable to both parties. But one basic question hovers above everything else, and it must be resolved in order to ensure peace and stability between the two peoples: What will the format be of a permanent arrangement between the two combative parties?

Two options have been sitting on the negotiating table ever since the talks began. Both involve the partition of the territory west of the Jordan River, but one creates two states, and the other two "nation-states.” In marketing jargon, it is the difference between “the vision of two states,” or “the vision of two states for two peoples.” A vast chasm separates the two formats described here, even if just a single word actually distinguishes them. Bridging this difference are platitudes about a “historic decision,” “difficult decisions” and “bold leadership.”