Israelis, Palestinians, Americans and others watched carefully Sept. 22 as Prime Minister Yair Lapid brought back to the international agenda the “two-state solution” for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This term had been a fundamental principle that enjoyed a type of Israeli consensus. Other Israeli leaders had referred to it. Still, it has been largely absent from the public arena and discourse in recent years. Generating resounding headlines in Israel and beyond, Lapid declared at the UN that the two-state solution was the “right” way to resolve the conflict. “An agreement with the Palestinians, based on two states for two peoples, is the right thing for Israel’s security, for Israel’s economy and for the future of our children,” he said.

Was the effect of his maiden UN General Assembly (UNGA) address a shocking earthquake, or a storm in a teacup? Probably both.

Lapid’s vision, expressed as he campaigns for the Nov. 1 elections, has come in for widespread condemnation in Israel. As my colleague Mazal Mualem wrote, it is too soon to say whether it did Lapid more harm than good in terms of political impact. Diplomatically, however, from Lapid’s point of view, this was an important move, perhaps even a necessary one.