Matt Yglesias writes:
Readers will know that I'm not a big fan of nationalism and I am a big fan of trans-national projects like the European Union and the United Nations. And it's even true that I really kind of hope that hundreds of years from now there won't be national states at all, instead we'll all be lumped in with the Vulcans and the Andorians in a United Federation of Planets and off we'll go. But there's clearly no [prospect] for the abolition of the nation-state in the short-term. And the Jewish people's claim to a nation-state is just as strong as the Finnish or Dutch or Thai claim. Or, for that matter, as the Palestinian claim. By far the best way to secure a just resolution of those conflicting claims is through a two-state solution - an independent Palestine, and a democratic Jewish Israel.
I completely grasp the pull of radical cosmopolitan values, but I think people who think that the area west of the Jordan River would be a great place to try implementing them in the short-term are being a bit crazy. It's not even clear that Belgium or Canada will be able to survive as bi-national entities.
Me, I'm not so sure about the withering of national states, cosmopolitan values notwithstanding. Those values don't require the levelling out of national plurality and diversity, only mutual respect across (non-harmful) differences. But I do agree with Matt that Israel-Palestine is not at present the optimal place in which to project the end of nationhood. Since both major national groups there have strong historical reasons for asserting their identity, it's hard to see why anyone would think of the area in this role - except if she had (let us just call it) a cavalier attitude to one or both of the national identities concerned.