The Israelis rejected Likud because they didn't want to be in a perpetual state of confrontation; they rejected Labor because they don't believe in suicide. Hamas can either come to the table now, or (as the Iranian hardliners reported are trying to do with Bush) try to wait Olmert out and hope one of the other parties takes control, and then portray themselves as either a victim or an equal partner.

When Israel sat down to negotiate with the PLO it lost the argument over whether an independent Palestinian state was going to exist. If the Palestinians enter negotiations now they losze the argument over whether Israel is going to. The borders are just a detail.

This is particularly opaque, even for you.

Israel sat down to negotiate with the PLO (at Oslo) precisely because Israel was prepared for---Israel wanted, and had, following the lead of others, finally convinced itself that the MOMENT had arrived for---a Palestinian state that was prepared to recognize Israel's existence, and co-exist side by side with it. Rabin was persuaded by Shimon Peres's (et al.'s) argument that not only did the demographics make it necessary to pull out of the territories, but that Arafat and the people he purportedly led, cognizant of the changed reality (post-Beirut, post-intifada I, post-Gulf War I), had seen the light, had climbed to the mountain top, had truly understood, had finally realized, had genuninely internalized that Israel could not, alas, be destroyed and were prepared to make their peace.

But the premise of Oslo, so utterly sensible, based on the principles of compromise and (more or less) enlightened self-interest, at least as the west perceived and continues to perceives self-interest to be, has proved a chimera (though a maddening chimera that continues to flash reflections of the wished for, peaceful ending, hologram-like, on one's psychic panorama). Alas, Peres was been proven wrong (though for so many, of course, not really, since Israel has never given the Palestinians enough to ensure a true peace---an argument somewhat akin to "Marxism has not yet proven itself a failed system because no state thus far has been truly Marxist"). Negotiations have yielded bitter fruit: rejection, war, bloodshed, misery, and death. And endless lies.

To be sure, the assumption (at least for most of earnest seekers of truth in the West) is---must be---that one has a handle on what words (like "peace," "co-existence," "compromise," "negotiations") truly mean; that is, that one recognizes if or when one has already passed through the Looking Glass. For already, too many are already in that alternate universe but do not realize it.

So that the title of the topic under discussion should actually be: "When are negotiations not really negotiations at all?" Or perhaps, "In a Looking Glass world, what does peace mean"? Or again, "If Israel's existence is the impediment, what therefore is the solution?"

Curiously, there are still significant numbers in Israel (not to mention the rest of the world---at least of those, who are willing to allow that Israel has some modicum of a right to continue to exist) who cling to the illusion that given the right offer, the Palestinians will agree to live side by side with the Zionist Entity.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that following a unilateral Israeli fait accompli, the Palestinians will shrug their shoulders, take a deep breath, accept the situation and put all their efforts to build the Palestinian state, fill those potholes, pave those roads, create an economy, and finally show the civic responsibility that has somehow eluded them for all these years.

To believe this, however, is to actively deny that as far as Palestine's borders go, those borders are---and have always been---the Jordan River and the Sea. Which is why the conflict will continue, "negotiations" or no "negotiations," unilateral decisions or not, imposed borders or not.

And if the "issue" continues to baffle those who believe that with enough effort, one can understand anything, it may help to perceive the problem as follows: Israel (with the US and to a lesser extent, others) has insisted that compromise is essential, that borders are in the Palestinian interest, that
a Palestinian state side by side with Israel is in the Palestinian interest, that peace (at least as it is defined by Israel) is in the Palestinian interest. And the Palestinians, quite sensibly, respond---have responded---by noticing that if such things are in the interest of their enemy, how can they truly be in the Palestinian interest?

The point of Israeli disengagement with the Palestinian Arabs is that, after doing so, they don't have to care whether the Palestinians suddenly start filling potholes, whether they create Paradise on Earth, or far more likely, choke to death on their own filth, refuse, and incompetence.

It doesn't matter what they do on their side of the wall. Even if they start lobbing rockets over, it just gives the IDF an opportunity to replay Dresden.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 30, 2006 5:28 AM

Even if...

Alas, one is dealing with a people who have suffered and continue to suffer because of their inability thus far to achieve the articulated goal of destroying the Zionist Entity.

One is dealing with a people who have supported suicide bombings in Israeli cities against Israeli citizens as both understandable and justifiable self-defense, yet who are self-righteously aggrieved, with much support, when Israel takes steps (building walls, establishing checkpoints) to prevent those suicide bombings.

One is dealing with a people that, overall, has supported the erasure of the State of Israel on the one hand, and can't understand why they should suffer for such a position, on the other.

In the end, the goal is to vanquish Israel. And to that end, having noted that Israel, until now, has been difficult to vanquish (pick whichever conspiracy-of-the-month for an explanation of just why that is so), the interim goal is to destroy the legitimacy of the state, while chipping away at the moral of its people, its economy, its will. For, according to the well-thought logic, once that legitimacy is destroyed, the Zionist entity, empty at the core, will topple.

And to destroy that legimitacy, the violence must continue against Israel, hand in hand with the claim that it is Israel that is the cause of that violence; that it is Palestine that sincerely wishes peace.

And this pathology has caught the imagination of much of the world.

So that if one were to unleash a Dresden as a response (perhaps, the more modern application would be Grozny (Grozny??)), the legitimacy would take a distinct battering: that ole "excessive retaliation" two-step; the "unjustified use of force" act; the "holocaust-victims-turned-holocaust-perpetrators" routine will be declaimed at an even higher pitch than heard heretofor.

(And if you think the chorus over Jenin was shrill, just wait.)

The Palestinian Authority's position that Israel must withdraw to the May 1967 borders, that Jerusalem must be redivided, and that Paletinian refugees that left or pre-1967 Israel must be allowed to return to their homes, earned them, most absurdly (but then people were either not listening too hard or preferred to listen selectively) the title of "partners of peace," of "seekers of conciliation" with Israel.

Now Hamas has risen to the leadership. More honest than the Palestinian Authority (though elements of the PA, such as Tanzim and Al Aqsa Brigades were quite sincere), this group's soundbite is that Israel must go and that Palestinians will triumph because of their steadfast willingness to kill and die; whereas Israel will succumb because Israelis don't like either to kill, or die.

Such sentiments are not, um, metaphorical.

They have been saying we may commit to a hudna, but our goal remains Israel's destruction.

In essence, they have been saying: "Come on, destroy us. Make our day"; shrewdly reasoning that the US, Europe---Israel itself---can only respond, "No, that can't be done. At any cost."

They are counting on Israeli irresolution in the face of long-term onslaught; on Israeli retreat in the face of attrition; on an Israeli response of, "We'd rather kill ourselves than be forced to decimate others, even to survive."

And so the carnage will continue. Until, perhaps, Israel understands that there may be no options. By which time it may well be too late.

Which is why giving them a state instead of destroying them discombobulated them.

Indeed. And although there have been no UN resolutions---yet---against Israel for visciously discombobulating the long-suffering Palestinians (adding insult to injury?), still, the show must go on!

Yes, the status quo serves the regions leaders.

Barry:

Yes, so when Israel sat down it began from a point where it had acceded to the PLO's main demand.

israel is doomed because they won't do what is necessary for their survival -- exterminate the palistinians. they want to keep the hem of their robes clean but those robes will be stained by blood one way or another.