Bolton says he prefers the "three state" solution - and I agree with it, even if it may not gain acceptance easily.
Originally - the Israelis HAD the West Bank. It was part of the original plan for Israel and Trans-Jordan (now Jordan).
Jordan TOOK the West Bank in 1948-50 (depending upon whether you consider "taking" informally or formally).
Israel took it back in 1967.
So who owns it? Israel, because they took it back after it was given to them, or Jordan because they took it a year or two after being formed as a nation and having it for twenty years?
Jordan clearly doesn't want to take the "Palestinians" - the name given to mostly displaced Jordanians after the wars - back.
They've been mostly favorable to the United States for many years, but while they could solve the Middle East problem by taking in their former people - they won't.
The "three state solution" is simple - Gaza goes back to Egypt. West Bank goes back to Jordan. And with it, the residents. No separate Palestinian state, which in all truth, would
just be a launching ground to push Israel into the ocean. Roll back the clock. I think the BIGGEST hurdle to that is - Jordan doesn't want all those people. They'd rather have
a destitute Palestinian state than accept back their own people.
What's strange is that the ONE state option is gaining ground, even among Palestinians - but I think only because Israel would have to cease to be a strictly Jewish state if
they had to grant equal rights to the Arabs living within their borders (which would include the West Bank). And I don't just mean freedom and treatment under the law, but access to
the higher levels of government.
And I've no doubt that no matter how the laws were constructed, the Arabs within Israel would still use it to push to their advantage - the ONE thing out of Kerry's speech I agreed with -
there would never be peace, but only because the Arabs don't want it.
They want annihilation of Israel, and a one-state solution is simply another path to that goal.