Progressive Israelis and Palestinians have a crucial task: mounting a political movement that gives us an effective voice in forging the future of our country.

Over the past 70 years a natural experiment tested the relations between Jews and Arabs. The results speak for themselves.

Documents obtained by Haaretz detail where Netanyahu was willing to compromise on borders, and how the U.S. failed to get Abbas on board over Jerusalem in 2014.

The possibility of a lasting deal seems as far away as ever – and the history of failed negotiations suggests it’s largely because Israel prefers the status quo.

We’ve several times mentioned Hanan Ashrawi’s lacerating speech on the cruel delusions of the peace process at the Israel lobby conference in March. Now the conference sponsors, Institute for Research: Middle East Policy and the Washington Report for Middle East Affairs, have published a transcript of the speech.

Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. In fact, it's not a democracy at all.

Noam Sheizaf, speaking at the Kehilla Community Synagogue of the East Bay in the San Francisco Bay Area last Friday, made the point that Israel will not change its occupation without outside help. And the most obvious outside “help” to be had is the United States stopping to run interference for Israel at the UN, says Sheizaf. Are you listening Nikki Haley?

Hamas soon expected to approve document summarizing the organization’s political and strategic positions, including declaring its independence from any outside party such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

From the Israeli leadership perspective, a Palestinian state in any true capacity has always been a ‘Never-Never Land’ that should remain in the realms of fiction. When Israel and the Palestinians embarked upon the famous ‘peace process’ in Madrid in 1991, Prime Minister Itzhak Shamir coined the ‘teaspoon policy’: endless negotiating sessions at which countless teaspoons amounting to mountains of sugar would be stirred into oceans of tea and coffee, but no agreement would ever be reached.

For more than 15 years, the Middle East “peace process” initiated by the Oslo accords has been on life support. Last week, United States President Donald Trump pulled the plug, whether he understood it or not.

Israeli opposition leader's plan: Sides will agree on decade of calm, during which time West Bank will be a violence and incitement-free zone; settlement construction outside blocs will be frozen, with more powers to Palestinians – only then negotiations.

The 1949 armistice border underpins the international community’s refusal to legalise Israel’s occupation. We must hold any changes to it accountable.

How Palestinians should respond to Trump's 'one state'Palestinians must make clear that the sole prerequisite needed for a lasting peace is justice on their lands.

The occupation has defeated sanity, even that of Reuven Rivlin. The president is calling for the country's annihilation.

The final interment of the already moribund ‘two-state solution’ would force all concerned to face what is obvious to any honest observer.

You could almost hear the collective gasp in the echo-chamber of Washington-based Middle East policy circles when President Donald Trump made comments backing away from the “two-state solution,” which has been a centerpiece of peace policy for the last 15 years.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday joined a growing chorus warning that the so-called two-state solution, which he called “the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” could be on the verge of permanent collapse.

Those who want the occupation to end should make every effort to push their governments to express the illegitimacy of Israeli policy and demand the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The Middle East peace conference which took place in Paris on 15 January was the usual farce, with Israel and Palestine, the subjects under discussion, both staying away. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called the talks “useless” and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was off opening an embassy in Vatican City...

The United Nations Security Council recently passed Resolution 2334, which condemns the construction of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, declares them again to be illegal, and demands a stop to any future such construction. Israel, as expected, has denounced this resolution.

DIn an interview, Jamil Mezher, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine's' political bureau, told Al-Monitor that the division between Fatah and Hamas is preventing the renewal of the political system in Palestine.

Dat er grenzen zijn aan geweld is een terechte vaststelling van hoofdredacteur Karel Verhoeven van De Standaard. Dat Dyab Abou JahJah die grens zou hebben overschreden is, politiek én legaal gezien, erg betwijfelbaar. Dat betoogt onderzoeker Pascal Debruyne van de Universiteit Gent in een diepgaande analyse. Want welke grenzen zijn er dan wel aan het geweld en hoe is vrede nog mogelijk in Israël en Palestina?

Stating that Israel must be a 'Jewish state' in which the 1.7m Palestinian citizens of Israel 'live as equal citizens' is not grounded in reality: there are already over 50 laws that discriminate against them, and Kerry’s principles do nothing to address these.

A truck ran over Israeli occupation soldiers in occupied Jerusalem yesterday. Four soldiers died and some others were wounded. The driver was a Palestinian father of three.

Fadi al-Qanbar knew all the consequences of his actions - he'd seen it many times before - but the Palestinians see Israeli retaliations as a natural part of the general policy toward them, not as a response.

From John Kerry to Israel’s liberal Zionists, the two-state solution is a misleading mantra that legitimises the seizing of Palestinian land.

Israel has not just committed unspeakable acts of genocide but done so with absolute transparency.

In his recent speech titled ‘Remarks on Middle East Peace’, US Secretary of State John Kerry offered a wide historical symmetric trajectory including “milestones” which Kerry believes “illustrate the two sides of the conflict and form the basis for its resolution.”

“Bad Faith and Futile Conflict Management” — that’s the headline I would give to the extraordinary events of the past couple days: the vote in the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlement; Kerry’s speech tonight on the necessity of saving the two-state solution; and Netanyahu’s reaction to both.

 The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution 14-0 condemning all Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as having “no legal validity” and amounting to “a flagrant violation under international law.”

 Netanyahu takes pride in killing the two-state solution—but he doesn’t want to be blamed for it, because he knows the only acceptable alternative is equality for all in a single state.

It’s now even more crystal clear: The world thinks the settlements are a crime. All the settlements and all the world | Opinion.

Le Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU a adopté vendredi – par 14 voix pour, 0 voix contre et 1 abstention – une nouvelle résolution (N°2334) qui condamne la colonisation des territoires palestiniens occupés par Israël depuis 1967, et … “souligne qu’il est essentiel qu’Israël mette un terme à toutes ses activités de peuplement pour préserver la solution des deux États, et demande l’adoption immédiate de mesures énergiques afin d’inverser les tendances négatives sur le terrain, qui mettent en péril la solution des deux États.”

Nothing could have been more calculated to ruin Hanukka for the Israeli High Command and bring Christmas cheer to the Palestinian Christians and Muslims they have abused and terrorised for decades. Yes, the United Nations Security Council finally had the balls to adopt a resolution condemning Israeli “settlements” (posh word for illegal squats) on stolen Palestinian lands.

The fresh support from the Security Council could cause the prosecution in International Criminal Court to dare to move ahead from a preliminary examination to an investigation on the settlements.

I agree wholeheartedly with Noam Sheizaf’s recent post about the Palestinians’ moral right to resist. But I would like to add that the moral right to resist is also the foundation of the Palestinians’ legal right to resist the illegal Israeli occupation. Considered within that framework, Israel’s suppression of Palestinian protest and resistance becomes even more striking and perverse.

The vote on the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, scheduled for Thursday afternoon, has reportedly been postponed. This came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put pressure on Egypt, the resolution’s sponsor.

The Security Council, Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

The potential of Palestinian democracy has been greatly weakened by Israel and its military occupation, Palestinian actors such as Fatah and Hamas, and key members of the donor community. Such a situation sustains the dysfunctional nature of the Palestinian political system and the unelected, unrepresentative status of the political actors who dominate the lives of the Palestinian people.

Neither criticism by UN Middle East envoy Nikolay Mladenov over settlement expansion nor a ruling by Israel's own Supreme Court against the construction of illegal outposts have ruffled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's insistence on portraying Israel as the victim of international persecution.

A ludicrous blueprint for permanent foreign military domination.

The demand for recognition of the Jewish state, which Ari Shavit says he is complicit in, seeks to camouflage the fact that the only people whose right to exist is really denied is the Palestinian people.

You can’t argue that the Palestinians aren’t an integral part of greater Israel; occupied and dispossessed, but integral.

On June 11, 2009, I published a piece here in which I suggested a formula: A demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish State of Israel. Three days later it was the thrust of Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan speech.

Israeli and Palestinian pollsters see numbers as 'not amazingly encouraging' but a suggestion that not all are satisfied with a two-year stalemate in diplomacy.

The October local elections won't only have Hamas and Fatah on the ballot.

The Palestinians, who have long suffered at the hands of their Arab 'brothers,' are well aware of the nature of the medieval Saudi regime.

The two-state solution is dead. The alternative? Jews and Arabs should be Israelis together.

Palestinians believe that calling for a binational state will force the international community to engage in a realistic two-state solution in 2017 and force the Israeli public to see the necessity of Palestinian statehood.

It is time for the citizens of the world to effect the paradigm shift required to bring about a peaceful resolution to the world’s most infamous conflict.

The Quartet needs to talk to Hamas. Instead the pro-Israel bias in its latest report could give Israel the excuse it needs to attack Gaza again.

How can one think productively about the Holocaust and the Nakba together? Political theorist Bashir Bashir argues that confronting this question is necessary in order to develop a new approach to decolonization in Israel/Palestine.

Below is a breakdown of the different instruments by which Israel has applied parts of its domestic legal system to the territories occupied in 1967, with the ultimate effect of entrenching the settlements and creating a segregated regime of unequal laws for Palestinians and Israelis.

Last week, the Knesset Finance Committee approved amendments to Israel’s 1959 Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investment that would extend tax benefits granted to certain businesses inside the Green Line to their counterparts in the settlements. Opposition lawmakers have criticized the proposal as a form of “creeping annexation.”

The Nakba dispossesses Palestinians: not only of land and territory, but also at the level of political discourse. Since the establishment of the state of Israel, the country’s judiciary has worked to constrict the space for Palestinian political activity – both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary – through various methods.

Now that some of the euphoria has lifted, it is possible to re-examine the Israeli-PLO agreement with the required common sense. What emerges from such scrutiny is a deal that is more flawed and, for most of the Palestinian people, more unfavourably weighted than many had first supposed.