1. Ted Belman said:

Rubin suggests that the US is simply maintaining appearances in the peace process. I beg to differ. I believe the US has an agenda which is in concert with S.Arabia to get Israel back to the armistice lines. I believe that Palestinian intransigence, violence and incitement will not prevent this from happening.

Israel must kill the Rafah Agreement.

2. ShyGuy said:

Agree with Ted.

Anyone still remember Sharon's 14 conditional objections to the Road Map? I wonder if even Arik remembers.

3. Bill Narvey said:

After reading Barry Rubin's opinion and then considering Ted's rejection of it, I am quite convinced it is the middle ground between these opposing views that more closely reflects the truth.

There is undoubtedly posturing going on by the Bush administration as they try desperately to maintain some semblance of balance as it is buffeted by many detractors. From the polls indicating his approval rating is falling like temperatures in winter, Bush is really on the ropes.

The Bush administration has been sensitive to criticisms that it has alienated its EU allies. Though there is more political positioning by Democrats and the left, than truth, Bush is still smarting from the sting of that criticism.

Though the EU's stance is mostly based on anti-Americanism, a desire to enhance their own world presence and prestige and to ensure they can keep all their economic benefits flowing to them that they have acquired by supporting the Arabs vs. Israel, Bush still feels the need to get the EU on side.

The Bush administration is directing some efforts to avoid isolating America by accommodating the positions of Britain and the more antagonistic EU positions on Israel and Palestinians.

This American effort to appease or find common ground with Europe in relation to Israel and Palestinians had its start long before this Bush administration, which is finding it necessary to continue the American policy of rapprochement with Europe on the Israel Palestinian issues.

The Bush administration about 18 months ago clearly stated that the end result of the peace process would not force Israel to retreat to behind the pre-1967 armistice lines. Though there has been some wavering in that regard, Bush has not retracted that position.

Discussions from the Israeli side look to retaining between 5 to 8% of the territories in any peace agreement. There has not been any American opposition to those ideas, at least not publicly, though publicly America has called on Israel to halt settlement expansion.

The Bush administration so far still speaks of an Israel with secure borders living in peace beside an independent Palestinian state. It has thus far been taken as a given that the pre-1967 armistice line borders were not secure and that still seems to be the case, though it is of course uncertain what more territory will be seen by Americans and grudgingly accepted by the EU as meeting Israel’s border needs.

The Bush administration however has continued to pressure Israel to make concessions, without calling on Palestinians to live up to their prior commitments. That I think is more a function of recognizing Abbas cannot or will not fulfill his obligations, though there is still a pie in the sky hope that with enough concessions by Israel, Abbas will gain strategically and thereby be strengthened to fulfill his obligations.

There have been calls for Israel to resile from the most recent concessionary Rafah Agreement. Israel is not heeding that call, at least not publicly.

The Rafah agreement however has already hit a significant snag in that both the Palestinians and European monitors are not providing Israel with real time information. It appears those lapses have resulted in breaches of the Egyptian Palestinian border whereby terrorists and armaments have gotten through. Though the Americans and Europeans have belittled the problem as glitches that are in the process of being fixed, there is reason to doubt that. Time will give a better view.

Once the corridor allowing convoys between Gaza and the West Bank are implemented, it is a virtual certainty that there will be further terrorist breaches. Unfortunately it likely will take the death of more Israelis to underline just how unworkable the Rafah agreement is and that should be enough to give Israel the pretext it needs to back out of the Rafah agreement, at least as regards the corridor link and refuse the idea of contiguity in any further negotiations. Palestinians cannot have contiguity unless Israel loses its contiguity and that, hopefully will be seen by all Israeli politicians as an idea that has come and gone and never to return again for them.

It seems therefore that while the Saudi plan is sought to be revived by some as a workable context for discussions and an agreement, unless Israel has a gun put to its head, it is not conceivable, even with the confusion amongst Israel’s political elite on what they can or will do, that it will ever agree to withdraw behind the 1967 armistice lines.

Further, there can be no peace agreement or independent Palestinian state without Palestinians ceasing their terror activities.

Abbas has demonstrated a clear inability or refusal to rein in terrorists, dismantle their infrastructure and fight against Jew hatred. He has shown his penchant for talking out of both sides of his mouth, just like Arafat. That coupled with Abbas’ new policy of rewarding families of suicide bombers and Palestinians with blood on their hands who were or continue to be imprisoned by Israel all works at cross purposes to America’s and the quartet’s road map to peace initiative.

America has to know or be leaning strongly to the conclusion, at least privately that the Palestinians are not, to paraphrase Abba Eban, missing any opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Israel’s desperation for peace and no more war has been the prime motivator for it to take one hopeless chance after another over the last 15 years especially to bring Palestinians around to the idea that they can benefit more from building a peaceful independent state alongside Israel than they can from their incessant war against Israel fueled by their Jew hatred.

All the evidence so far screams out that Israel’s hopes in that regard have been delusional as much as America’s similar hope that fuels its efforts along the Road Map to peace that looks more and more like a Road Map to Israel’s disaster.

Perhaps Israel should consider finishing its fence to encompass all the areas it wants and needs, declare it the new borders and see what happens. Frankly, I cannot imagine things being any worse.

As things are now, it just does not look like Palestinians are going to come around any time soon to accepting peace with Israel that America and the quartet are trying to thrust upon them, no matter what more concessions Israel gives.

With Iran's bellicose threats and its President being a loose cannon with an insane hatred of Israel and Jews, the chances of Iran setting off a major middle east war pitting Muslims against Israel, seems far more likely.

4. Ted Belman said:

There is no inconsistency in the Saudi peace plan and retaining 5% of the land. We are expected to replace it with at least an equivalent parcel of land. Bill when is the last time you heard say defensible borders or that he will not do anything to undermine Israel;'s security. Just the reverse, The US is forcing Israel to enter agreements which threaten them.

The Bush administration isn't expecting a cessation of terror therefor there will be no agreement. But they are expecting Israel to pull bjack unilaterally to the fence and to hunker down except to keep allowing Arabs in to Israel to work.

Israel will allow Rafah to go forward without the security issues being taken care of. Israel won't declare the fence the border nor will they pull out of the West Bank. They may uproot more settlements but will stay thewre for security reasons.

5. Bill Narvey said:

Ted, the Saudi peace plan also contemplated amongst other things, that East Jerusalem would be for the Palestinians and the refugee issue would have to be resolved. Bush had at one point stated the refugee issue was dead. I do not know that he retracted that position. Israel has toyed with giving up East Jerusalem, but it seems pretty obvious to me that Sharon was angling to get all of Jerusalem.

The first I heard of the idea that to get to keep 5 - 8% of the territories, Israel would exchange other land was in relation to Barak's offer. Sharon declared that offer dead and no deal that good would be offered again.

I am not aware that Israel keeping some of the territories was now seen as only possible in relation to being somehow bound to give some other land in exchange.

In terms of defensible borders, frankly it was a nice sounding phrase when often repeated but really held no meaning given that no matter how much land Israel gets in addition to the 1967 armistice line, it is still a very small country that is easily in the range of missles, planes and an armoured division attack.

I am about as upset over what America has forced Israel to do as you. The problem is that early on, Israel's hunger for peace has driven it into a number of bad deals, made worse when the Palestinians broke their word every time. That hunger is still there and coupled with American pressure, Israel is still being moved into bad deals.

Perhaps my comments on the Rafah agreement are somewhat wishful thinking, but I just don't see it being sustained if terrorists slip off the convoys into Israel and kill Israelis. If that happens and Israel persists in trying to make the corridor workable, they would fairly be described as harboring a death wish. Some already are close to saying that. Giving Palestinians a corridor across Israel for them to have contiguity deprives Israel of contiguity. It makes no sense and I am hopeful that given the opportunity Israel will shut down that corridor once and for all.

As for allowing Arabs to come into Israel to work, Sharon had stated that policy would end in 2008 I believe. Frankly, that policy ought to have ended in 1948 as soon as it started. Israel could have turned to immigrant workers with strictly controlled temporary work permits to provide it with the work force it needed. Instead it compounded its problems and continues to do so to this day.

I see no moral or legal obligation for Israel to continue to provide Palestinians with employment and incomes in order to assist in the growth of a Palestinian economy.

Having said the foregoing, it sure looks like the yardsticks continue to be moved. Each time the Palestinians gain a concession on the basis of their broken promises, Israel is expected to negotiate from that compromised position, ignore the Palestinian breach and to compromise further in return for the next broken promise.

No nation being in charge of its own destiny would ever negotiate in that fashion, but as events have shown over the past 30 years, Israel is hardly in charge of its own destiny.

I have expressed the wish for Israel to stand its ground, take back ground and give no more and see what happens.

The worst thing would be I think that America would make good on its ultimatums, putting Israel back into the same position it was when it said no. It would have lost nothing.

The best would be that America would not make good on its ultimatums or at least not fully and Israel would have gained ground back.

It seems to me that Israel standing up and saying no more and taking back some charge of its destiny presents little risk of being worse off for it, but there is a reasonable chance they will be the better for it.

I guess Ted, I am somewhat more hopeful that Israel and its leaders will come to their senses sooner rather than later when it may be absolutely too late to pull back from the brink they seem to be rushing towards.

6. kuhnkat said:

I am always amazed when I hear, or read, people discussing the merits of this or that peace plan. Haven't the arabs made it absolutely clear over the last 1000 years that they have no intention of ever allowing the Jews to have a country of their own or even Peace on this planet???

7. Bill Narvey said:

Khunkat, since the infamous declaration of the Khartoum 3 nos which reflected the Arab 1000 year position you speak of, the Middle East Muslim world have slowly begun to speak of peace and shown a willingness to negotiate.

Is it because the Middle East Muslim mind set has actually moved from an outright rejection of Israel to allowing Israel to exist under certain conditions which for now at least Israel cannot accept, but with further negotiations perhaps could?

Is it because the Middle East Muslim mind set in terms of an ultimate goal has not changed, but their methods to achieve their goal of no Israel has, in that:

a. They are really playing to Israel's deep desire for peace and thereby fooling Israel into believing that pursuing negotiations will eventually bring peace when in fact they are manouvering Israel down a garden path to negotiate away pieces of itself until there is nothing left?

b. They are willing that Israel exists, but only in a weakened state so their final effort at a genocidal attack on Israel will accomplish what 4 past wars did not?

The varied analysis and debate over Israel-Palestinian issues, just like other national and international issues all derive from the very human quality of curiosity and the need for understanding, which search for meaning plays out within the ambits of differing culturally learned senses of right and wrong and good and evil and the desire to bridge gaps between those differences.