First of all, don't bite my head off, I was interpreting the remark. Second, there is a world of difference between a "two state solution", with ALL parties signing on to the deal and taking responsibility for their part of the bargain, and "Israel retreating to the 1967 borders", while the whole Arab side signs on to nothing except their ever-living Saladin dream of driving the Crusaders into the sea. For Israel to unilaterally retreat in the face of terror would imo be much closer to the second scenario than the first. The second scenario leads to Israel fighting for its life from the indefensible 1967 borders, with all of Europe declaring that Israel is an illegitimate state with no right to existence. That's how I get there.
And if you still don't believe in the existence of the second scenario, do please spend some time reading Al Ahram, and Arabnews, and memri.org to see what the Arabs say to each other in Arabic. You won't hear much about a two state solution there, I can promise you.
I believe Dennis Ross' interpretation, which is that Arafat will never sign a deal, and even if he does, he will say that he was forced into it, it's humiliating, and therefore he is not responsible to abide by it (very easy to believe; hasn't Arafat always behaved this way?) Moreover, the whole Arab world will back him. Did you see the Syrian commentator in ArabNews who thought that Sharon intended at the end of his campaign to make Arafat take the Taba deal, and this would be the ultimate humiliation? A country of their own & $30 billion in aid = ultimate humiliation!
A deal is no good until both sides are willing to abide by it. |
