In the denunciations of Mahmoud Abbas from corners where he had been accustomed to being allowed to get away with anything, such as from the EU and the western punditocracy, a common refrain was that Abbas' ascribing centuries of pogroms against the Jews of Europe to Jews bringing it upon themselves contradicted his commitment to a "two-state" solution. However, his speech does nothing of the sort. Nothing that Abbas said stands in opposition to having two states in the southwest Levant. That is, there is nothing which contradicts dividing the territory into an Arab state and a bi-national state.
Herein lies the problem with talk about two states. When westerners talk about two states, they take it as a given that one of those states will be the current Jewish state of Israel, albeit on less territory. However, the Palestinians exploit that assumption by going along with "two states," but without saying explicitly what the second state, after the Arab state, will be. Meanwhile, Abbas categorically refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and resists any compromise on the right of return, both consistent with a strategy to turn the second state into a bi-nation state.
What we need to do is to be explicit about our non-negotiable demands. We insist that when all is said and done, there will remain a Jewish state. Talk of "two states" without saying anything about either of those states must not be allowed to be a substitute.