We say: Not only is a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict possible, its pursuit is a national security obligation and a moral imperative for both Israel and the US.

First, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is feasible. The contours of such an agreement are already well-known. What is needed today is the political will to sincerely pursue and implement it.

Yes, extremists in both Israeli and Palestinian society will reject any compromise, but past experience demonstrates that they are not the majority in either society. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have in the past made significant progress toward mutually-agreed compromise formulas. Even on issues that involve heavy emotional baggage for both sides, such as Jerusalem and refugees, leaders on both sides have devised reasonable parameters which large majorities of Israelis and Palestinians support. The gaps between the parties, as broad as they may seem, are not unbridgeable. Israelis and Palestinians, as well as international brokers, can benefit from creative proposals such as the Geneva Initiative and other Track II efforts. If Israeli and Palestinian leaders - supported by the US and the international community - reach a reasonable, workable agreement, majorities on both sides would follow.

Second, the repercussions of abandoning the active pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace would be disastrous for Israel (and for the Palestinians). It's telling that the "no solution" argument is heard from both the extreme left and the extreme right, two camps that are capitalizing on the current, festering status quo - the diplomatic impasse and the increasingly complicated situation on the ground - to discredit and delegitimize the two-state solution and efforts to achieve it.

This is an existential issue for Israel: continued Israeli control over the lives of millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza threatens Israel's identity as a Jewish, democratic state. The occupation is eroding Israel's democracy and its values, transforming Israel into an increasingly violent and intolerant society. Israeli efforts to address the very real security challenges stemming from the absence of a peace agreement - challenges that have no ready answers - are resulting in Israel's increased isolation and growing pariah status in the international arena.

Moreover, while some believe that the price of a two-state solution is too high, we know that the price of not having peace will be unbearable for both peoples. We know that there are only two alternatives to the two-state solution. One is an apartheid-like situation - what will soon be an Israeli-Jewish minority ruling over a Palestinian majority. The other is a bi-national state - a prescription for ongoing bloodletting between Jews and Palestinians, two peoples who each aspire to their own state.

Third, the active pursuit of peace and the two-state solution is a vital national security interest of both Israel and the US. It significantly increases the chances for regional security and stability, and provides a platform for more effectively addressing the threats of terrorism and of Iran's nuclear quest.

They say: Okay, maybe one day there will be a real, political peace agreement with the Palestinians. But in the foreseeable future, all we can hope for is "economic peace," improvement in the living conditions of the West Bank Palestinians. What's wrong with that?

We say: Economic development in the West Bank is obviously welcome. It is both a Palestinian interest and an Israeli interest. But economic development has never been, and will not be an alternative to political peace. And it certainly is not an alternative to living under occupation by a foreign power. No amount of economic improvement will ever compensate for that. Palestinians cannot be bought that way any more than Jews can.

In fact, an exclusive focus on economic growth in the West Bank, without a parallel effort to create a viable political horizon, will enhance political tensions between Israelis and Palestinians and may impede Israel's maneuvering room in future negotiations.

Economic growth is not a guarantee for stability. The periods that preceded both large scale waves of Palestinian violence (the first intifada of December 1987 and the second intifada of October 2000) were relatively prosperous for the Palestinian economy. In both cases, violence erupted because of socio-political reasons, not economic stress. One of the chief causes of the first intifada, according to experts, was the dissonance Palestinians experienced between their improved quality of life on the one hand and the diminishing prospects for a political breakthrough on the other. In other words, the uprising was, to an extent, a popular Palestinian reaction to the danger that the relative quiet, under relative economic prosperity, might be interpreted by Israel and the international community as acquiescence to a politically unacceptable status-quo.

All that is not to say, of course, that economic development in the West Bank is not a worthy cause. It has many advantages, including political ones, which are in the interest of Israel and the United States. But economic development ought not be mistaken for the necessary conditions to a political breakthrough, which can prevent violence and the outbreak of war. A political breakthrough could only be a result of a credible diplomatic process that involves negotiations toward a shared political goal.