and to nobody in particular. But I take the liberty to make some remarks about what some defenders of One State propose that the Palestinians do. The first step is clear: break up the Palestinian Authority and return all the organs of Palestinian self-government to the Israeli military governor, which already rules through Mahmoud Abbas.That is simple. But then follow general proposals. "Non-violent mass protests", "boycott, divestment and sanctions", "addressing the rights of Palestinian refugees" (from the 1948 war) and the "Palestinian citizens of Israel". She mentions approvingly that already more than a third of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories support a single-state solution - meaning a bi-national state.With due respect, will these remedies - all together and each one separately - liberate the Palestinian people? I don't believe it will.Experience shows that it is easy for the occupation authorities to turn a "non-violent mass protest" into a very violent one. That happened in both intifadas, and especially in the second. It started with non-violent actions, and then the occupation authorities called in snipers. Within a few days the intifada became violent.The use of boycotts? There is now in the world a large and useful movement of BDS against Israel. The Israeli government is afraid of it and fights against it with all means, including ridiculous ones. This fear does not spring only from the economic damages this movement can cause, but from the damage it may cause to Israel's image as well. Such image may hurt, but it does not kill. The racist regime in South Africa was not brought down by foreigner, but by those despised "natives". The blacks started campaigns of armed struggle (yes, the great Nelson Mandela was a "terrorist") and mass strikes, which brought down the economy. The international boycott played a very welcome supporting role.What about the International Court in the Hague. Israel spits on them, as it spit on the UN resolution at its time.What is left? There is only one alternative: violence. It is the only argument that Israel listens to.Many peoples throughout history started wars of liberation, violent struggles against their oppressors. In Israeli jargon that is called "terror'.Let's ignore for a moment the reprehensible aspect of violence and concentrate on the practical aspect only: could a violent campaign by the occupied people against the occupying mighty army, under existing circumstances, succeed? The Israeli security services have shown during the Second Intifada considerable ability in fighting against armed resistance, at least if this resistance is not massive.If not armed resistance, what remains for the Palestinians to do? To "hold on", as Mahmoud Abbas does? Abbas uses Petain's "tactic", supported by some outsiders, as the French General saved Paris from destruction and made it possible for most of the French people to survive the occupation and when the Nazi empire broke down, France, under Charles de Gaulle, joined the victors God knows why.The problem is that Petain's strategy of cowardness spared France because the Nazi occupied the country for a couple of years, not for seven decades, and Hitler did not install