The two New Yorker articles (by Avishai and Munayyer) need to be read side by side, and since both are reactions to Ian Lustick's New York Times piece, that should be read too.

I basically agree with Avishai that those who argue "We're making negative progress towards two states, so let's concentrate on creating one multi-national state" are delusional. The Lustick quote, in which he imagines segments of Palestinian society (seemingly effortlessy) finding common cause with their Israeli counterparts, certainly reads like fantasy.

But I don't buy Avishai's Canadian analogy either, as evidence that two or more nations cannot cohabit a single state. The Rebellion of 1837 erupted in both English-speaking Upper and French-speaking Lower Canada -- what are now Ontario and Quebec. And the aim in both was responsible elected government, not independence from the British crown.

Lord Durham's report provided that, and by uniting the two Canadas under one legislature, he compelled their political leaders to compromise and co-operate. The next 30 years laid the seeds for a federal system that has proved remarkably durable.

Some multi-national or multi-ethnic states fall apart easily: see Czechoslovakia and the much messier Yugoslavia. But look also at Africa, where virtually no border reflects actual linguistic or tribal boundaries. Yet, aside from a few recent split-ups (Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia), those borders haven't budged in more than half a century. Ethnic tensions may simmer, but African leaders seem to recognize the stability of preserving colonial boundaries is better than the alternative.

(I really did digress a lot here. Sorry, but anything is preferable to getting into the actual nuts and bolts of the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma.)