Just as events in Jerusalem and Gaza put the Palestinian struggle for freedom back on center stage, the way scholars and analysts are thinking and talking about it is starting to shift, however belatedly, away from a fanciful framework and toward one grounded in reality.
For years, as the debate about the future of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea has raged, disagreement about the outlines of future solutions have characterized divides, such as: Do you support one-state or two? Any useful discussion that helps move the situation forward should not start by building consensus around a vision for the future, as important as that will be, but by first having a clear perception of the problem. After all, it is a lot harder for people to collectively apply a solution to a problem they do not see the same way.
For decades, there has been a one-state problem in Israel-Palestine. Since 1967, one state has militarily ruled over the territory from the river to the sea. That state, of course, is Israel. For over half a century, an ostensibly temporary occupation has entrenched itself as permanent and has been normalized by those refusing to see through the guise.