She asks us to
Imagine a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine in which Palestinians would have the right of return; Israelis could settle wherever they could purchase land in the West Bank; and Jerusalem need not be divided.
As she further elucidates:
...suppose that the reason that no Palestinians and Israelis [are] willing to conclude such a deal...is that the solution itself is domestically unsupportable on both sides. Suppose that as long as a version of this deal [which is: a version of the deal that Clinton sought: two sovereign states based on the 1967 borders, with negotiated land swaps to reflect existing settlement patterns. The agreement would include a land corridor connecting Gaza and the West Bank; a divided Jerusalem with guaranteed access for all to religious sites; Palestinians’ renunciation of the right of return; Israel’s willingness to dismantle settlements outside the agreed borders; and recognition of both states across the Middle East] is the only game in town, the creeping physical expansion of the Israeli state and the demographic expansion of Israeli Arabs will continue to erode its foundation..
She then goes on to promote Russell Nieli's article in Tikkun, “Toward a Permanent Palestinian/Israeli Peace – the Case for Two-State Condominialism”.
...The core idea is that Israelis and Palestinians would be citizens of two separate states and thus would identify with two separate political authorities. Palestine would be defined as a state of the Palestinian people, and Israel as a Jewish state. Under “condominialism,” however, both Palestinians and Jews “would be granted the right to settle anywhere within the territory of either of the two states, the two states thus forming a single, binational settlement community.”
...Each state would have the authority and the obligation to provide for the economic, cultural, religious, and welfare needs of its citizens living in the other state’s territory. These would be extraterritorial rights and responsibilities, just as the United States, for example, provides for its large numbers of expatriates, such as civilian dependents of US military personnel based abroad.
To make this work, the borders of each state would first have to be defined – presumably on the basis of the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed territorial swaps. Israeli Arabs would then be required to transfer their citizenship, national identity, and national voting rights – but not their residence – to the new Palestinian state. They would have a permanent right to live in Israel and would retain the benefits to which they are currently entitled as Israeli citizens, but they would now vote as citizens of Palestine. All other Palestinians living in Israel would have rights and benefits only under Palestinian law.
Why define borders? In any case
Condominialism recognizes the reality of the deep interconnectedness of Israeli settlers in the West Bank with the rest of Israel – through roads, water supplies, electricity grids, administrative structures, and economic relationships (just as Israeli and Palestinian parts of Jerusalem are interdependent). Instead of trying to separate and recreate all of these structures and relationships, it makes far more sense to build on them in ways that benefit both states’ peoples and economies.
The "right of return" is a no-go/non-starter. And without Arab/Muslim recognition of Jewish national ethos, this isn't worth the virtual paper on which it is printed.
There is no comparison, historically, culturally, religiously or legally, between the status of an Arab in the Land of Israel and that of a Jew therein. Zionism achieved and gained international recognition for "close settlement of Jews" in the territory, at the least, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, having been forced to relinquish, supposedly temporarily, that right in 1922 but we were victims of British reneging.
The Arabs sought from the start, via demonstrations in late 1919 and then violent murderous riots in 1920, to eradicate that entity. And then they lied and propagandized and rejected any and all diplomatic resolution and engaged continuously in terror, as they still do.
A solution cannot be minimalistic. it cannot avoid the Arab negativism, their attempts at disinventivity, the Islamic fanaticism. All what Princeton may be avoiding or ignoring.
But I am willing to deliberate condoninalism - as long as it isn't minimalistic.