Although I believe there are at least a few fundies who desire to recreate Biblical Israel (a/k/a the "Jesus landing pad") the nation of Israel does not have a single motive in that a great many diverse people live there.

No matter. And mindreading is irrelevant.

Unless and until Israel succeeds in helping Palestine become a viable state, they shall not know peace.

Blame is also irrelevant. We could blame the Arabs 99.5% and the equation does not change -- until Palestine becomes a viable nation state, Israel shall not know peace.

Its not fair but nation building is the only road to peace, unless you wish to put genocide on the table and as I often post, THAT would be the mother of all ironies.

when the danger from Egypt and Jordan was removed, that changed the entire playing field in the area. Also, I'm pretty sure that most if not all politicians in office then have been replaced by now, not to mention the changes in population. As to what has prevented the Palestinians to move from failed to unfailed, treating the whole area under military occupation as a giant prison camp hasn't helped.

It's pretty clear from looking at events that Israel has no intention of allowing an actual Palestinian nation to form. There's plenty of blame on both sides for that, but to continue to insist that it's all the Palestinians fault is simplistic and naive.

The Palestinian state is noncontiguous, has no particular set of natural resources, has no access to port facilities, does not enjoy a particularly well-educated populace, is not capable of defending itself from any of its neighbors, does not control the headwaters of what rivers it does have access to, and is an international pariah.

Other that that, it has every sign of viability and success.

I think the Oslo accords of the early 90´s were a big step forward for Israeli/Palestinian relations. The negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt under Carter did not involve Palestinians because Israel did not recognize their existence. Oslo was the first time that Israel gave recognition and entered into negotiations. After Hamas was elected, Israel withdrew that recognition and has continued to. Reform within can never hurt, but real peace will not come until both parties recognize each other and are willing to negotiate.

That said, I don´t see much point to Palestinians pursuing negotiations with Israel for the time being. Israel is so powerful and the Palestinian position is so weak, that there is little they can hope to gain. Let the Iraqis and al Qaeda bleed the US elephant a little whiter, let the price of gas rise a little higher: it´ll put Israeli/Palestinian affairs in a new light. I believe that the wise course of action for Israelis is to strike a deal while the striking´s good. It would have been a lot better before last summer´s debacle. Israelis are poorly served by listening to Americans with nothing to lose goad them into intransigence.

Not that long ago I was a huge fan of that Big Wall for Israel. Build it tall and stout and impose a de facto two state solution.

And yes, I thought the 1967 borders with a few strategic adjustments was the right line on which to build that wall.

What I overlooked was Israel's need for low cost Arab labor. Rather like our need for immigrants to do construction, home health care, landscaping, dry cleaning, food services etc. . .

Israel's Big Wall will need a great many doors so West Bank Arabs can get to their jobs within Israel. Therefore, Israel cannot isolate themselves from the Arabs without severe economic consequences.

Thus, the status quo.

A "Faust-ian bargain" sort of question is whether Israel is actually better off absorbing periodic terror attacks in exchange for perpetual access to cheap labor.

how credible is some striking?

The Muslim Brotherhood ain't a big presence because Assad brutually represses them. Even so it's likely the most powerful opposition, and in the absence of Assad would rise to power.

With Gaddafi in the mid 80s OTOH, he was probbaly the worst Libya had to offer (support of the PLO; support of Iran in the Iran/Iraq war; pan Arab-Islamism; support of terrorists, etc.) and I think we were willing to take him out.

I don't know enough about the region to have strong opinions one way or the other, but I imagine that's the counter-argument.

What's the lesson you take from Libya, btw? I'm glad you brought it up.

I always thought it was kind of an interesting mix between carrots + sticks. Libya did cut out a lot of the shenanigans post-86, but only released the pan Am bombers and normalized relations with Europe after mandella + kofi annan stepped in.

Gaddafi's somewhat pro-western conversion was aided by a simple conversion to realpolitik, a desire for some carrots, and the work of diplomacy.

Also, the bombing had its effects.

So conclusion: maybe we need the hawks, and the appeasers/carrot givers working in unison on our ME probs like they did in Libya? Pelosi's visit was a good idea?

Someone tell Bill White we're further ahead with the space program than he thinks.... I went to sleep on planet earth last night and woke up on some other parallel world.

:)

Seriously though, for all my complaints about Arafat, for all his many and deeply serious faults and for all the harm he's done the Palestinians both north and south of Isreal, this is a new one on me.

From what I understand, these greatly expanded concessions didn't include a right of return or compensation in it's place, any of Jerusalem or a viable state either.

I wouldn't like to sign that one and try to sell it to the folks back home. Sounds like an appointment to a one man lampost/piano wire concert.

The Isrealis seemed to enter the negotiations with the intention to slowly grind out a deal that gave away as little as possible - they were in the position to do so holding all the best cards and perhaps anything else would not have been saleable to the Isreali populace. In other words, maybe neither side could give enough to make a deal possible and the only question is who would walk away first.

and I'm sure Arafat was the proximate cause of the breakdown, but anyone who's looked at the maps that were proposed by Israel knows that there's no way the Palestinians would have accepted them. If I was the head of the PLO, I wouldn't have accepted them.

what I should have said to be clearer was "unless things get really, really bad for the political elites no progress will be made".

Arafat´s money came largely from Israel - construction contracts and the like. That income stream has dried up. These days most of the labouring once done by Arabs is done by Thais, Chinese and Europeans.