state for peace and the open triangle of exchange

Submitted by myth (Germany), Jan 28, 2013 at 07:46

The PA in the West bank no longer pursue land-for-peace exchanges. Now they demand state-for-peace. That is what I understand from the discussion. I have one explanation to offer. PA officials are bureaucrats very much like their western counterparts. They require a state to legitimate their mere existence towards their own population. Israel met this demand partly. Israel does accept the PA as an institution and so do western media and international institutions.

The problem, it seems to me, is that the PA today seeks contact with the so called "international community" rather than talking to Israel direct. International institutions over decades could not advance Palestinian interests. They decorate politicians with Nobel prizes every now and then. But these laureates all ultimately failed to give the PA a state. There is simply nothing to gain for the PA following this path. The PA should talk to Israel direct, and only to Israel. After all it is the strongest political power in the Middle East. As a negotiating culture a variety of political parties, offering a range of standpoints, would open more channels to communicate with Israel.

From a technical perspective I see an exchange rate that converts rockets fired to settlements approved. The trouble is, Hamas fires the rockets but the Westbank receives the settlements. Gaza, Israel and the Westbank form an open triangle if exchange. The PA is on the receiving open end with nothing to respond towards Israel. Translating this into a state solution, I count three states, with Gaza not worth talking about. From the TV discussion I had the impression, that the PA representative has already discarded Gaza silently.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".