Agreed. That's exactly what I propose. If the Palestinians don't stop all violence, give up the Right of Return, and help shut down organizations like Hamas that won't make a compromise peace, then (after a 6-month interval to give it a chance to work), Sharon gets everything he wants, we back him without reserve, and the Palestinians lose their last chance to get a State west of the Jordan River.
Sounds just like the Oslo accords. However, as we have seen, the pressure to keep the accords "alive" no matter what follows, is immense. "Arafat is a partner for peace" was the cry (never mind - take your pick - gangsterism, extortion, incitement, massive corruption, winking at Hamas and PIJ, outright funding of terror). Just as so many cry now "But Saddam is cooperating with inspections", when it is patently obvious that he is doing no such thing.
How long did it take for Bush to stop talking to Arafat? and that was only because Bush is a hawk. If it were up to the State Department or the Europeans, Arafat would still be getting the red carpet treatment as a "partner for peace" no matter how many suicide bombings he ordered.
There is no trust involved. Both sides have to be willing to compromise, or they get punished.
Nah, the basic package is assymetrical. Israel gives the land - a tangible item - for peace - an intangible item. There has to be trust involved. For the Palestinians, trust that Israel will honor the terms of the deal; for the Israelis, trust that the Palestinians won't see the deal as a phase in phased plan of destroying Israel.
Most Israelis firmly believe that Arafat signed Oslo as such a ruse from day one. Remember, soon after the accords were signed, Arafat himself compared them to the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, a peace treat that Mohammed made with the Qureish and broke as soon as he was in a stronger position. The late Faisal Husseini compared Oslo to the Trojan Horse, and the intifada to the coming down of warriors from the horse.
That is why Arafat will never see such a deal again. |
