It is true — as Paul now begrudgingly concedes — that many of the Jews who moved to occupy the West Bank did so, to make a two-state solution nearly impossible.

But from this agreed factual point of departure, Mirengoff reaches an untenable conclusion: that it must be that Palestinians leave the West Bank, entirely.

Not that Jews return most of the land they squatted on. Fascinating. There’s that PTSD kicking in, again. Here’s his quote, from this very morning:

…[T]he “two-state” solution — cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy under most U.S. presidents — is a non-starter. Most Palestinians don’t want it, and Israelis shouldn’t want it because such an arrangement would undermine the security of the Jewish state.

Ignatius counters that (1) it’s the large Jewish presence on the West Bank that renders a two-state solution all but impossible and (2) this was the intention of the settler movement. I think there’s truth to the second of these claims. But I question whether a two-state solution would be possible, or desirable, even if the Jewish presence on the West Bank were small and geographically confined….

The only likely path to peace — as ever — involves surrender of some West Bank land, by Israelis.

But to be sure, Paul well-knows this. He’s just too traumatized to accept that is the way this will go, once Israel’s civilians grow desperate about the daily drum-beats — of dead Jews… AND dead Palestinians. [As it is with justice — peace is often something that makes all sides partially uncomfortable — and unhappy with the outcome. Nobody gets all they want. And that is how is becomes… durable.]

Stay tuned. Paul will see this, in time — as the fog of the trauma clears.