In theory the one-state solution is not a bad idea. In theory, Israelis and Palestinians should be able to coexist happily in one state. In theory, Jews shouldn't need a state of their own. In theory, Palestinians could live among the settlers who despise them.

In fact, it's a terrible idea (although, at some point, in a hundred years or whenever the two peoples can truly coexist, it may not be).

I just got back from Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is one of my favorite places in the world. It epitomizes the success of the Zionist movement. Tel Aviv is the embodiment of Theodor Herzl's dream: a modern, tolerant, secular Jewish city.

It's not just dynamic by Middle Eastern standards; it holds its own with New York and Los Angeles. It is no wonder that more Israelis choose to live in the Tel Aviv region than anywhere else in Israel. Nor is it a surprise that secular Israelis continue to leave Jerusalem in droves for Tel Aviv.

In a way, I'm embarrassed that I so much prefer Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Tel Aviv is almost entirely Jewish (Jaffa, right next door, has always been mostly Palestinian). I feel as if I should prefer Jerusalem, precisely because it is mixed. But I don't.

Forty-one years after Jerusalem's "unification," it is more tense, religiously intolerant, and uncomfortable than ever before. Jews stick to West Jerusalem and Arabs to East Jerusalem. There are police and soldiers everywhere (you don't see soldiers much in Tel Aviv, except hanging out at the beach or near the Defense Ministry). Jerusalem is like Berlin before 1989. Two cities, divided by a wall of disdain, if not hate.

The reason Jerusalem is so unpleasant is because the two peoples living there don't want to have anything to do with each other. They do not want to live near each other, and many would prefer to never even see the other. Of course, this is not only true in Jerusalem. It describes Israelis and Palestinians in general.

That is why the two-state solution was devised. Israelis and Palestinians would each run their own affairs in their own country; neither would be in a position to dominate the other. Jerusalem would be a shared capital, although divided as it is now.

Implementing the two-state solution would secure Israel, end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, end Palestinian homelessness, and, as envisioned in the Arab League's Peace Initiative, would lead to the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world.

Will it ever happen?

I wouldn't bet the house on it. Although the current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have brought the two sides closer together than ever before, it is unlikely that a final status agreement will be signed any time soon for a number of reasons.

The Palestinians are divided. The Palestinian Authority (PA) wants peace with Israel but Hamas (which controls Gaza) rejects it and clings to the idea of destroying Israel. The Israelis are not ready to give up their settlement enterprise; they talk about giving up the West Bank while taking more and more land for settlements and roads to connect them. As for the United States, it has been AWOL for seven years, only now pushing for an agreement when it probably is too little and too late.

But the biggest threat to the two-state solution is that the Palestinians are growing tired of waiting for it. It's been 15 years since Oslo and the Palestinians are no better off than before. They are as much under occupation as ever--although Gaza is not so much occupied as under blockade. Palestinian officials still strongly support a Palestinian state, but less official types like scholars, journalists, activists, and opinion leaders are moving in the direction of the one-state idea. And even one major Palestinian leader, former Prime Minister Abu Ala (Ahmed Qurei)--who is conducting the negotiations with Foreign Minister Livni--said on September 15 that unless a Palestinian state is created soon, the moderate leadership will favor "one-state, a bi-national state." He said the same to me in his office last week.

From a Palestinian point of view, there is much to recommend the one-state solution. For starters, it would not have to be negotiated with Israel.

The Palestinians would merely have to officially give up on the two-state idea and announce to the world that they favor Israeli annexation of the territories. They would state that they are seeking Israeli citizenship and the right to vote in Israel (like the Israeli Arabs). Although the ultimate goal would be to supplant a Jewish state with a bi-national state, they need not say that. All they would have to do is go to the United Nations and to the various world capitals and demand the right to Israeli citizenship.

What could Israel do? It could say no, refuse to annex the territories and enfranchise its people but at the cost of being transformed from a democracy to pre-Mandela South Africa. It would become a pariah state, losing even the support of the United States--which will not support an Israel that rejects one-man, one-vote democracy. International economic sanctions would be applied. And ultimately, Israel would yield. Millions of Palestinians would have the vote. Demography--and democracy--would do the rest. The Zionist dream would be over.

It is hard to imagine that any one who knows Jewish history would support such a scenario. But the fact is that everyone who fights to preserve the status quo and Israel's claim to the West Bank is supporting it. They are choosing settlements over a Jewish state, illegal outposts over Haifa, occupation and domination of another people over Israeli self-determination.

The bottom line is this: Jews can either end the occupation and have a secure and flourishing state within the pre-'67 borders (with minor modifications) or they can, in due course, become a minority in the Jewish homeland.

Choosing the latter is a form of national suicide.

And yet, that is the choice being made by the Israeli right and the pro-Israel establishment (the lobby) here This choice will lead inexorably to the end of Israel. Don't they know that or don't they care?