Yousef Munayyer writes, “The simple truth is that over the decades, the Israelis developed enough power and cultivated enough support from Washington to allow them to occupy and hold the territories and to create, in effect, a one-state reality of their own devising. Netanyahu and Trump are seeking not to change the status quo but merely to ratify it. The question, then, is not whether there will be a single state but what kind of state it should be. Will it be one that cements de facto apartheid in which Palestinians are denied basic rights? Or will it be a state that recognizes Israelis and Palestinians as equals under the law? The latter is the goal that Palestinians should adopt. The Americans and the Israelis should also embrace it. But first they must realize that the status quo will eventually prove unsustainable and that partitioning the land will never work—and that the only moral path forward is to recognize the full humanity of both peoples.”

“Susser is convinced that the king has been swayed on the farmer issue by Israeli policy rather than public opinion. ‘Israel’s rejection of the two-state solution, the situation on the Temple Mount and the fact that the Jordanians feel like Israel is not fulfilling its part of the peace agreement have provided King Abdullah with real grounds to avoid making this gesture to Israel. As far as the king is concerned, there is no reason for him to continue making gestures to Israel when he is not getting what he expects in return’.”

“Economics professor at Al-Azhar University in Gaza Mouin Rajab told Al-Monitor that the government is taking this step in the hope of disengaging from Israel economically, following systematic and escalating Israeli pressure and practices, most recently the tax revenue cuts and the quasi-total dependence on Israeli economy that have exhausted Palestinians and drained their resources. He said, ‘The Palestinian government is opening up to neighboring Arab countries again, signing new economic agreements and reactivating the suspended ones’.”

“Ein Hanya is one of the largest and most important natural springs in the Jerusalem area. It is within Jerusalem’s municipal borders, but residents of the neighboring Palestinian village of Al-Walaja regularly visit it. Consequently, it was enjoyed by both Israelis and Palestinians for years before Israel decided to turn it into an official park. The spring was officially inaugurated as a tourism site two years ago, but its opening has been repeatedly delayed, for two reasons. One was a dispute over whether entry fees should be charged. The other was the police’s demand that Palestinians not be allowed to enter.”

“A Palestinian woman says she was told by Jerusalem’s Shaare Zedek Medical Center that she could not apply to one of its nursing school programs because it is only open to Jewish applicants, a claim the hospital denies. The woman, an East Jerusalem resident who wished to be identified in this article simply as N., told Haaretz that a secretary at the hospital’s nursing school program told her when she sought to apply that admission is open ‘only to those of the Jewish religion’.”

“Masked settler youth armed with crowbars brutally assaulted a group of largely foreign volunteers assisting Palestinian farmers with the annual olive harvest in the northern West Bank, rights groups reported Wednesday. Of the five volunteered injured, four were visiting from the US, UK and other European countries, said a field worker for the Yesh Din NGO. An 80-year-old activist from Rabbis for Human Rights was also among those targeted, suffering blows to the arm and head. He was evacuated to the Meir Medical Center in Kfar Saba with a broken arm.”

Avner Gvaryahu  writes, “The struggle for democracy runs through the struggle against the occupation, and it can exist only by forging a strong partnership with the Arab public. To try to fix what’s broken but to continue to repress what’s happening on the other side of the Green Line is not just hypocrisy, but criminal stupidity.”

Harry Reis writes, “Throughout these last two rounds of forced elections, Israelis glimpsed an anti-democratic future – one controlled by a narrow immunity-annexationist coalition that would have protected Netanyahu as a man above the law. While Netanyahu failed to emerge with the majority required to enact that dark future, his irregular maneuvers over the course of the past two elections — attacking the judiciary, inviting extremists into his coalition, and undermining voting rights — upended a number of key democratic norms.”

“While Likud members have indeed repeatedly chosen the incumbent over any other challengers, there have in the past at least been contenders to put themselves up against the party leader, prime minister or not. While a number of senior Likud members, including Sa’ar, have sought to position themselves as the eventual successor to Netanyahu, none has emerged as a clear favorite to do so nor as an obvious heir to Netanyahu’s and Likud’s political legacy. Netanyahu hasn’t let them. Since becoming prime minister for the second time in 2009, he has never named a permanent designated deputy who would automatically take over leadership of the country if he were unexpectedly indisposed or removed from office by impeachment. Instead, each time he travels abroad or undergoes a medical procedure under sedation, Netanyahu names a different senior Likud minister as his temporary stand-in.”

“For decades now, the Beltway consensus on Israel/Palestine has been a two-state solution. This preferred outcome is generally cited alongside a number of additional goals: self-determination for Palestinians and security for Israelis. Whether or not this ambition lines up with the current reality of the conflict is obviously a disputed topic, but one thing is clear: challenge this consensus from a Palestinian perspective and you’re liable to be condemned. Challenge it from an Israeli perspective . . .  and you receive a collective yawn from Washington.”