A Palestinian boy attends the funeral of a relative who was killed in an Israeli attack on the southern Gaza Strip of Khan Younis on January 27, ten days after Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire in Gaza. (Hatem Omar, Maan Images)

US Middle East envoy George Mitchell has been tasked to listen and to help shore up the Israel-Hamas ceasefire during his week-long visit.

But the signs point to a more ambitious agenda ahead: Saving the two-state solution. Its impending demise has focused the minds of those in Washington determined to save Israel from itself. They are reframing the conflict: a Palestinian state is now crucial to Israel's survival.

The reframing is potently illustrated by Sunday's CBS 60 Minutes segment "Time Running Out For A Two-State Solution?" Using strong images and language rare in the mainstream media, the respected CBS correspondent Bob Simon painted an unflattering portrait of messianic Israeli settlers and a sympathetic one of Palestinians losing land and rights.

Another significant signal is the December 2008 report A Time for Diplomatic Renewal: Toward a New U.S. Strategy in the Middle East by the Brookings Institution, led by Saban Center Director Martin Indyk in close collaboration with the Council for Foreign Relations.

Among its recommendations: the United States should support a Palestinian unity government so as to "diminish the Islamists' incentive to undermine negotiations." It should push for Hamas acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative and drop preconditions that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce violence, and respect past agreements. It should insist on a full settlement freeze and quickly issue American ideas on final status to keep "the hope of a two-state solution alive."

	Related Stories
	It's 'all about Hamas' Video: Time running out for a two-state solution Breaking Gaza's will: Israel's enduring fantasy When Israel expelled Palestinians Special coverage: Crisis in Gaza

Indyk, who is close to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, spent years at the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC and its think tank the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It is safe to assume that he has Israel's interests at heart.

These are some of the signs of a "Washington consensus" on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that involve acting "aggressively," as Barack Obama put it, to bring about a Middle East peace on the basis of a two-state solution. Why is this so critical to Israel?

Bob Simon answered this question in the starkest possible terms: "Without a separate Palestinian state the Israelis would have three options, none of them good. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid - have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don't have a very long life."

In fact, it is not Israel's survival that is at risk but rather its survival as a Jewish state.

Can Mitchell succeed? It will be tough. Some of the more obvious problems could well be the easier to deal with. For example, while it is true that some of the 450,000 Israeli Jewish settlers are armed and are determined to "resist" evacuation, there are non-violent ways to pull back the settlement movement. Israel can turn off the financial tap to settlement construction and compensate those who choose to leave. Israeli government officials have aired both options. The United States, too, could tighten its aid spigot, as Indyk himself hinted in his recent, oft-quoted remark that the "era of the blank check is over."

Then there is Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu's hard line. The front-runner in the upcoming Israeli elections is close to AIPAC and the Christian right, whose discourse still dominates the Hill. But in a battle between two sets of pro-Israel forces, it is likely that the popular Obama and Clinton - together with opinion-making institutions like Brookings and the Council on Foreign Relations, and centrist American Jewish organizations like J-Street - will win out.

Nor is Hamas the toughest issue Mitchell faces. Hamas is a non-state actor that wants very much to be a state actor. Otherwise it would not have run for elections in 2006 or indicated acceptance of two states within the 1967 borders.

The toughest issue is this: Palestinians have been doing some reframing of their own. A critical mass of Palestinian intellectuals, within the occupied territories, in exile, and in Israel, now supports one state with equal rights in all of Israel/Palestine. A major international conference is planned in Boston in March on how to make this a reality. Several Israeli Jews will be speaking.

Similarly, the movement supporting the Palestinian right to return to the homes they lost in 1948 is a much more formidable force now than when the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. Interestingly, more Israeli Jews - and not just on the fringe - are participating in this movement.

There is also the growing demand by Palestinian citizens of Israel for equal rights within Israel, which in and of itself challenges the notion of an Israel that is both Jewish and democratic.

In responding to Mitchell, the Palestinian leadership will find these new realities hard to ignore, weakened as it has been by the Israeli assault on Gaza and by the use of Palestinian Authority security forces against Palestinian protesters.

Despite Mitchell's vaunted abilities and the aggressive backing of the US administration, it may be too late for two states.

Nadia Hijab is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies in Washington D.C.