The best way to explain hard concepts is by making analogies to everyday things. Of course you have to be careful that the essential part of the analogy fits. When I was in school, I was told “the map is not the territory” — in other words, in any analogy there will be things that are different from the reality one is trying to describe. You just have to know what’s essential.
So I am going to make one more try at explaining why the “two-state solution” is not a solution, and why the people who claim to want one are either terminally uninformed or evil. Here is my analogy:
One day I was down at the lab when a young scientist came running up to me. “Dr. Fresno!” he called. “Eureka! Eureka! I have invented an automobile that does not require fuel, or even batteries!”
“Great,” I said. “You have solved an important problem. How does it work?”
“Simple. You just paint half of the roof of the car with solar paint. When light strikes it it produces electricity, which operates the electric motors that run it.”
“Hmm,” I said. “But how does it work at night, or on an overcast day? You said there were no batteries.”
“That’s the other half of the roof. You paint it with anti-solar paint. When dark strikes it, it produces electricity…” he began.
“That’s amazing,” I told him. “How on earth do you make paint like that?”
“Oh, I have no idea. But wouldn’t it be a wonderful solution?”
Technorati Tags: two-state solution