1. Bill Narvey said:

Ted, in your comment, you state, "But that doesn't mean that Israel gets to keep 5% of the territories for nothing. Israel will have to give to Arabs land of equal value. This will be done only when the Arabs agree to an end of conflict agreement."

I seem to recall that the Ehud Barak offer to Arafat contemplated this notion. The offer was rejected. An offer rejected no longer exists.

Why then the reference to 5% of the territories? Sharon stated early on that the generosity of the Barak offer would not again be offered.

Each concession made by Israel seems to be a new starting point or new status quo for Palestinian demands for greater concessions with the tacit approval of the U.S. and other world leaders.

Israel and many diaspora Jews have lost their focus on what Israel needs for its security and welfare and clouded that with sharing focus on Palestinian needs.

If Israel needs 5 - 10 - 15 -25%, etc. of the territories for its own needs, that is what Israel must demand and devise a strategy to get it including making moves to establish those needs by fence building or other physical signs on the ground. That strategy must also be aimed at convincing Diaspora Jews to support those needs as defined and determined by Israel.

The U.S. and the world might angrily bellow should Israel take any further unilateral steps that are not in accord with the perceived final status contemplated by the Road Map, but Israel needs to test the waters as it were to see whether they really risk any worse fate than angry words. If the U.S. actually does take steps to harm Israel for any such unilateral action, Israel can retreat back to where it was.

Before taking such unilateral steps however, I think it important to get the voices of Diaspora Jews that count with the U.S. administration on side with such anticipated action.

2. Ted Belman said:

I disagree. In previous articles I suggested that after Arafat walked out, the diplomatic community kept working on the offer intending to close the gaps. The Saudi Peace Plan follows this up with '67 borders and an exhange of land. The US has micro-managed the location of the fence and I can assure you not for security reasons. The only reality I see is the fence and that will be the end of it. Israel will remain in the West bank for security reasons but for all intents and purposes, Israel will live within the fence. I have no hope or expectation of anything better for Israel.

3. Bill Narvey said:

Ted, I am unclear from your comment as to what comments of mine you take issue with.

I am aware of what transpired after Arafat rejected the Barak deal though I do not see that per se is an absolute bar for a new tough Israeli initiative. I also think it necessary to get more people on side for such tough initiatives, if those initiatives have any chance of working.

I can understand and accept your view that Israel's fence will establish the borders. The Israeli courts have already ruled that the fence had to be moved in certain places. I do not understand Israeli laws, but I would have thought political decisions at a time of war remove the issues of a nation's response from the courts, other than of course a government's denial of fundamental human rights that every democracy recognizes. I did not understand how and why the Israeli courts balanced Israel's needs against Palestinians interests. I would have thought the matter at worst would be that Palestinians were entitled to compensation for the loss of access to their land, but the fence would have stayed as it was necessary for Israel's security.

I am uncomfortable about a government's efforts at national security and its game plan to aid in its negotiations for a final status solution would be reviewable by a court. Israel has enough overseers as to what they are doing and how they are doing it in terms of advancing the peace process forward while protecting their own interests.

Are you saying that Israel can no longer expect to retain more than 5% of the territories?

Are you saying that Israel is bound to compensate Palestinians for its taking up to 5% of the territories?

The need to compensate derives from an acceptance that what is sought to be taken are already Palestinian lands.

While Resolution 242 contemplated land for peace, it was not all land occupied to be traded for peace. Palestinian's right to land and the specific borders of that land have yet to be determined, albeit with the various agreements since Oslo, the general borders of Palestinian lands that will ultimately be in place are readily seen.

When the rules of the game are stacked against you, the choices are to stop playing the game by others rules and walk away from the game or take the initiative and change the rules.

Israel's situation is such that it cannot walk away from the game, so if it wants a different result it will have to dare to take the initiative and test the resolve of the rule makers.

4. Ted Belman said:

"An offer rejected no longer exists." It does when it comes to Israel. See Painful Concessions reposted today.

Your interpretation of my position is correct. I am saying it is a fait accompli. It is happening never mind legal niceties.

I have also written that if Israel doesn't like the Saudi Peace plan they should get off the Roadmap because that's where it is going. Of that I have no doubt.

5. Bill Levinson said:

Re: "But that doesn't mean that Israel gets to keep 5% of the territories for nothing. Israel will have to give to Arabs land of equal value. This will be done only when the Arabs agree to an end of conflict agreement." An end of conflict agreement with the Arabs is worthless because the Arab nations are untrustworthy. As shown by discussions of the hudna or phony peace, they are not even ashamed of making phony peace agreements and then breaking them as soon as it is convenient. A contract with a dishonorable liar is not worth the paper it is written on. Therefore, Israel should keep all the land, expel the two-legged locusts that are squatting on it, and inform the surrounding Vermin in Turbans that they will be slaughtered if they so much as lift a finger to Israel.

6. Bill Narvey said:

I agree with all you say Ted, with the one exception that I still think Israel, if it could get focused and gain support for a new daring unilateral initiative, it could test out whether what you, I and so many others believe is the reality, is in fact partly smoke and mirrors.

We of course do not know precisely what threating inducements led Sharon to agree to Rafah or other positions taken. As we have seen with the U.N. vis a vis Kosovo, Sudan, Iran and Iraq to name several examples, threatening ultimatums of grave consequences to occur if certain things did not come to pass, were not carried out for a while when the target of the ultimatums did not act as demanded. More angry ultimatums followed, but no action until finally the U.S. did act.

It leaves me to wonder whether the U.S. (and other nations involved in the process) would immediately carry out its ultimatums against Israel if Israel were to take some new bold initiative that went against the grain of the Road Map, like expanding where they build their fence.

Unless Israel tests the waters as it were, they will not know for certain whether the threatened action will immediately materialize.

With each new Israeli concession, one further step is taken along the Road Map to peace and with each new step, Israel's options and negotiating strategies are further restricted and curtailed. Each new agreement becomes a new status quo or staging ground from which new Palestinian demands spring, such as the contiguity notion that finally gained recognition in the Rafah agreement.

Unless Israel soon does seek to change the status quo to its advantage and see what the reaction is, the deeper the fait accompli we see gets etched in stone.