Can It Ever Really End?

By Sam Bahour

The world has finally come to its collective senses by explicitly acknowledging that Israel's 37-year military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem must come to an abrupt end in order for peace in the Middle East to have even a remote chance of success. With this belated awakening, a fair and frank question has come to the forefront.

Will the Palestinians accept the end of the Israeli occupation as their cue to cease, once and for all, their five-decade struggle to correct the historic injustices done to them? The easy answer is no.

Fifty-five years of historical injustice does not subside with the signing of a peace treaty, official or unofficial, whatever the extent of public relations invested in the effort. Prospects for peace must start to be measured by how well justice is served, and not by how much fanfare is generated.

The fact of the matter is that many Israelis, some say the silent majority, are now finally convinced that their country's illegal occupation of Palestinians must end, but they are holding themselves back, some say holding the Palestinians hostage, by wanting clear guarantees that what will follow Israel's return to the 1967 armistice border is absolute security for every Israeli citizen.

<snip>


http://www.counterpunch.org/bahour12022003.html


Interesting article...

No matter what Israel does, it doesn't get peace. But this article is pretty honest. If Israel gives the Palestinians everything they want, and somehow billions or even trillions of dollars get shoved into the West Bank and Gaza, there is STILL no guarantee of peace.

Israel should have built the wall along time ago -- over whatever path it chose then, but mostly along the Green Line -- and told the Palestinians to go to hell.

Is this a Liberal-Progressive board ????

how bout shoot em all, let god sort em out

I recommended peace. I'd love to see peace. But this article makes it abundantly clear peace is not in the cards for Israel. So if Israel can't find peace with the Palestinians, then isolation from them is better than war.

It's more than just land and some monetary compensation, there needs to be 'moral compensation' too.

To quote a Palestinian historian "the Palestinians aren't the first people in history to have their country taken from them, but they are the first to be morally condemned for their reaction to it."

What do you consider "moral compensation?"

I swear that would be damn near the end of it. They might even get an "I'm sorry" back from the Palestinians.

It's hard to tell.

I think what I meant by that:

is that the Palestinians have always been regarded as the 'officially designated bad guys' by the West, I'd like too see some owning up by the West as to how much we screwed them.

Sort of saying to the Palistinians in a stroppy voice "here's your land, here's some money, now shut the fuck up" is not going to ensure peace because it doesn't address the moral grievences that they have.

The 'Sense of Injustice' is a very powerful driving force in people generally, and is something that has to dealt with and hopefully tempered in some way, for any peace to suceed. The history of the Balkans is probably an every 30-50 year atrocity that's a reaction to the last atrocity by the other side, going back several centuries.

If you leave this 'Sense of Injustice' undealt with because it is a bit embaressing in that the West and israel are shown in a bad light, then you are just leaving a national memory that is a time bomb waiting to go off. Mandela in South Africa held the 'Truth Commission' probably to deal with exactly this sort of analagous problem.

Again, and I have said this before, the Palestinians are not offering peace. Based on this article and thread alone, that much is apparent. Now you seem to be implying that even peace is not peace unless it has good marketing.

Again I say, Israel took waaaaaaaay too long to build a damn wall. Israel should have nothing to do with the Palestinians at all.

"Again I say, Israel took waaaaaaaay too long to build a damn wall. Israel should have nothing to do with the Palestinians at all."

If you had any understanding of the realities, you would know that Israel has avoided building "a damn wall" because said wall might be confused with an international border, which Israel (unique in the world) refuses to declare. You would also know that Israel wants plenty "to do with the Palestinians," because Israel wants Palestinian land, and is now using the "damn wall" to steal it.

Because they are not real.

Israel has avoided walling itself off from the world because they know they have to live there and, unfortunately, they continue to believe they will one day live in peace.

Guess what? Not going to happen. Even if the Palestinians get a state, they will still want more. Israel will be beset throughout history from without.

A wall would have clarified things. No Palestinians allowed in -- ever. Israel for Israelis. Now it is too late. Because WHEREVER they build a wall, the Palestinians will complain and keep attacking. The UN will complain that Israel is not providing jobs (as if that were ISRAEL'S job), the left in America will complain that Israel is not trying to incorporate itself into the Mideast.

Only Israel is right. Everybody else, the whole world, is wrong.

Don't be ridiculous. Once the Palestinians have their state, a state that is acceptable to them, then if they "want more" they won't get it. And if they go on the attack then Israel can clobber them and the UN, the world, can say nothing. Right now strong Israel is bullying and patronizing weak Palestinians.

it involves the West and israel swallowing a bit of pride and holding their hands up for having done something wrong.

"Again I say, Israel took waaaaaaaay too long to build a damn wall. Israel should have nothing to do with the Palestinians at all" possibly works in the very short term but generally is a solution for people who prefer to be bombed rather than apologise.

This article convinced me more than ever that this is the modern equivalent of the Forever War. Both sides will slug it out throughout history. Sooner or later either we'll have another outright war (or several) or a terrorist will slip through with a nuke. Either way, peace is a fantasy.

You are almost insisting that all hostiilities cease, or it's not worth the effort. Bahour is right to caution people that's not going to happen.

There can be no such thing as a perfect settlement to this conflict. Both sides have their extremists who aren't going to be happy and aren't going to abide by anything that doesn't leave their side in control of the everything from the Jordan to the sea and permits any but Jews or Arabs, depending, living on that land. Such people are going to make a stink.

That's pretty much what the case was when the British finally granted Ireland independence after many centuries. To this day there are Catholics in the south and Protestants in the North who still think the situation would be better off if the island were under one flag. The conflict gets ugly now and then, even today. However, it would be a lot worse without the resolution that was reached in 1922. Let's just hope the final settlement in the Levant works better than that.

But I expect that we won't have suicide bombers every couple days and I doubt that will happen.

But Ireland is different. Partly because both NI and the Free State are now part of something larger, part also because the island isolates them from other influences.

The I/P situation is far worse. And, I am afraid, has far less likelihood of ever even approaching peace.

I'll agree that if we have anything like that, it's not working. Or even every month.

There are any number of risks that any peace plan will go wrong. However, not taking those risks is what seems unconscionable. Do you really want the situation to continue as it is now?

Even if the Palestinians have more to gain, it is the Israelis are the side taking the lesser risk. If the Palestinians do no live up to their end of the bargain, the Israelis will win any war that would result. The Palestinians know that and won't want to lose what they will gain through peace.

I don't see any likelihood that the terror will stop. As such, I don't really see any incentive for Israel to do anything the Palestinians want, much less grant them a state.

What's funny (sad) is that I was in Israel before the Second Intifada and everyone thought there might be peace. Now, I think peace has been buried so deep my grandkids won't see it.

As for lesser risk, I disagree. If Israel gives up a ton and gains nothing but false promises, then the terrorists win, are emboldened and grow massively in power.

the right word, Muddle.

A state is not for Israel to grant to the Palestinians. The UN, the US, the EU, and Russia, in short, the world, creates a state for the Palestinians, and Israel must go along with it, in exchange for peace. Israel must give up what it has taken in exchange for peace.

If Israel gives the Palestinians a state, then it happens. The UN and others would merely ratify. If the UN and others TRY to give the Palestinians a state without Israeli OK, then it doesn't happen unless they wish to enforce their will with a war.

The problem here is that no matter what Israel does, it doesn't get peace. That's not especially motivating for them to change the status quo.

Israel is above every other nation, including the US! Is it? Then why does Israel want to join the EU?

Secondly, why worry when it is sitting on a pile of WMD? What is this pile of WMD for if not for defending itself if attacked?

Israel, or I should say Israel's leader, doesn't want peace and avoids negotiating for peace because, imo, it means dismantling settlements. Sure looks like he prefers to add new ones, not dismantle existing ones. So far he has dismantled only a few insignificant outposts.

what we want, but there are no guarantees. Does that mean peace shouldn't be tried? Of course not. It's just Israel's leader's way to avoid a state for the Palestinians, to go on creating settlements instead of dismantling existing ones. What does it take to make you see that?

The Palestinians don't want to stop terror and have shown no intention of doing so. Once they get a state, the battleground will simply move into the remaining area Israel holds. And it will begin again.

"Just give up a little more land and you will have peace."
"Just accept the right of return and you will have peace."
"Just walk into the sea and you will have peace."

at the table. First you get together. They have in the past and every time it failed. That doesn't mean they should stop talking.
Lives, on both sides, are at stake.

It is not "give up a little more land," Muddle. For the sake of peace Israel must get out of what they have taken!

As for the right of return, you are like Gimel, who doesn't seem to have heard that the leader of the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia, has suggested that the refugees give up the right of return in exchange for financial compensation. That's reasonable, and should be forced on the Palestinians. Who gets compensation, how much, etc., that's all to be negotiated. It's so important that they get together!

The article depicts the truth of the Palestinian strategy. Demand removal of settlements AND the right to send thousands of Palestinians into Israeli territory. That is reverse the tables on the Jews, swamp their country with Arabs.

The false propaganda relating to "expulsions" embellished and expanded upon for most of the 55 years, fabricated stories of murder and genocide for this very purpose.

for a few million Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel proper, and swamp Israel with Arabs. Surely you know that Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Arab world, has suggested that the Palestinians give up the right of return in exchange for a financial settlement. This is what the Palestinians must agree to if they want a state.

So, financial settlement instead of right of return (good for Israel), share Jerusalem (good for both), and dismantle settlements (good for Palestinians) and there can be peace. If both sides are willing it can be achieved. Where there's a will there's a way!

Is a nice fellow. He also supports the Geneva Accord (although not "unambiguously").

I was struck by several passages from this article:

"Israel, especially Israel's Prime Minister Sharon, has used the myth of absolute security as a strategy to avoid assuming historic responsibility. Not the US, not Yasir Arafat, not a well-groomed Palestinian Prime Minister--nobody, not even a demilitarized future State of Palestine--can guarantee Israelis, or any people on the planet for that matter, absolute security. The sooner that Israel concludes that its security cannot co-exist with an illegal occupation of another people, the closer the Palestinians and the Israelis will be to embracing each other's fears and working jointly toward alleviating them."

--Sharon uses the myth of absolute security not only to avoid historic reponsibility, but also to avoid any attempt at meaningful negotiation. It goes like this: "The PA must first eradicate terror before we will talk."

--Of course, this reverses the order of responsibility, which, from a moral and legal perspective, requires that Israel must end the occupation before it has any right to demand and end to violent resistance. The article recognizes this as well:

"To put the Palestinians and Israelis on the track toward historic reconciliation, Israel must stop holding the region hostage. It must begin by unilaterally ending the illegal occupation of Palestinians and working to establish a Palestinian state based on internationally accepted borders and international legitimacy."

The myth of absolute security, along with the dishonest and hypocritical use of the word "terror" -- which together invert the historical, moral and legal reality -- is used to hold the region hostage, on and on and on....

It's true that Sharon demanded a complete cessation of violence for a week before he would begin implementing the Tenet Plan. However, the expectation of complete security for every Israeli is obviously an exaggeration. Of course, the cessation of violent attacks is a goal. The mass bombings have to be eliminated. Attacks orchestrated by terrorist organizations have to be eliminated. Occasional criminal or individual activists unrelated to an organized group attacking an Israeli would not mean that the peace process is scuttled. This was the case with both the Egyptian and the Jordanian Peace settlements. Individuals seeking vengence did attack. Compensation was made for deaths and damages.

But a commitment to it. In any situation, there are always bound to be a few extremists who might continue the fight. But in this situation, the Palestinian extremists rule the roost and show no sign of ever agreeing to peace. Nor does the PA show any sign of shutting them down.

That's not a recipe for peace, it's a recipe for Israel's destruction.

Palestinians could never destroy Israel. What could happen is the opposite. Palestinians are the ones driven out and they are being killed in greater numbers. But don't let those facts bother you too much as long as you like to exaggerate...

Whether or not Palestinians can destroy Israel from without IS debatable.

The Palestinians have many Arab allies and supporters. They could push Israel's back to the wall where its only option was nukes -- not exactly a pleasant choice.

From within, how long do you think ANY citizenry can withstand infinite terror? The Jews, who were crushed by Hitler and his many allies in Europe and elsewhere, now have spent 55 years almost constantly at war.

And, we both know, there is no prospect of that war ending. No chance that anything Israel agrees to will bring peace.

denies you...

Won't bring peace.

You may be proven wrong...

And it makes that much clear that peace is not going to happen in our lifetime or our children's or their children's.

The article just said that some other things should be settled as well (right of return) not that peace is NOT going to happen in our lifetime or our children's or their children's. Those are your conclusions. Reality may just prove you wrong. Certainly such overly pesimistic views.

And does more to harm Palestinian chances at statehood than anything except Arafat.

I choose to hope that you are wrong.

By the way, regarding your wonderful damn fence, what about the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who already live on the other side, in Israel as citizens?

And what the 250,000 more that will be added to the total by your beloved fence?

By the way, are there any CURRENT peace initiatives that you would care to voice your SUPPORT for?

I expect forever war.

"Palestinians" who live in Israel as citizens are Israelis and not Palestinians.

My "beloved" fence is not all that beloved by me. I just don't see other options. If I were building it, the path would be different, but I would have build it long ago.

Currently, I support disengagement. If, over a time, the Palestinians come to realize they need Israel as well for jobs, economic co-prosperity, etc., then that could gradually change.

AND ethnic brethren to the people in the territories.

It is up to THEM to determine how they view themselves, and i assure you that they consider themselves both citizens AND Palestinians.

Finally--if you would have built the wall along the "green line," as you infer--what do you think should be done about the SETTLEMENTS, which are one of the greatest of all obstacles to any solution?

If the Israeli citizens who are Arab wish to call themselves Israeli-Palestinians or Palestinian-Israelis, that's fine by me. But they are Israelis so that needs to be part of the equation. If they wish to revoke their citizenship, that is a different matter.

I would NOT have built the wall entirely along the Green Line, nor did I imply so. You seem to infer it, but that is incorrect. I would have included all of Jerusalem and, depending on when it was built, would have run relatively close to the Green Line. But, since there is no peace treaty, I would have included security as a concern.

As for the settlements, they can be negotiated away in a peace process. But for Israel to shut them down now is bowing to terror and I oppose it.

By Palestinian residential areas....by including the Settlements within the wall, Israel is, in effect, annexing this population, which in the present plans, amounts to a quarter of a million people!!!

Does this make them involuntary Israelis?

Will they become citizens with legal and voting rights?

Should these people have any say in the matter?

Do you support ethnic "removal" of these people?

Or should they live in a state of permanent occupation, surrounded by an Israeli jailer's fence?

There is no easy answer to this that is in any way humane.

That much is certainly true. No matter what Israel does short of total surrender, it gets war. It is quite sad.

As for your questions:

I view the wall as a temporary security measure that will be adjusted when there is a peace treaty.

No, Israel is not annexing the population nor can it, nor does it wish to do so.

Until there is a peace treaty with the Palestinians, the area in question is under Israeli jurisdiction, so no the people should have no say in security measures.

I am completely opposed to removing the Palestinians. Those in the direct path of the wall would have to move, much as people in the way of a highway have to move here, because of emminent domain. They should be compensated.

You are not a realist are you Muddle? Even the Nazis didn't last forever, are you saying the Palestinians are worse and more powerful? :crazy:

Excuse me if that statement conjures up other meanings then you probably intended.

Are you mindreading? I said what I said and anything else is your spin...

We are just in awe.

And had you taken the time to read my entire comment, I said it was PROBABLY NOT WHAT YOU INTENDED.

And if you don't see why I was offended by that remark, 10,000 words of explanation won't help you either.

Just being a realist. if that offends you I am sorry. Reading all those articles about Europe being anti-semitic and generalizing I could be then offended by every post concerning since we're not all as some imagine. But you can twist it anyway you like so you feel offended whatever I would say and try to discredit me..

We don't. Just a hell of a lot of them. That is a significant difference.

generalizing. Some yes, no more then bigots around other parts of the world...

I read a good chunk of the mega report. I think a hell of a lot of them is quite accurate.

And is certainly a generalization--and a decidedly vague and unhelpful one at that.

But based on the massive number of anti-Semitic incidents reported (and let's not forget that many of the nations surveyed have poor tracking for such data), then there is certain a large problem. How many active, abusing, vandalizing, etc. anti-Semites in Europe? How should I know. But the number is significant.

But how much these acts reflect opinion, and on what scale, is much harder to determine--indeed, it is impossible to really know.

I would strongly dispute, however, the recent wave of anti-European rhetoric, prumulgated by the likes of Sharon, Dershowitz, et al.

These argumenst presume that any disagreement with present GOI policy is directly refelctive of a "new" or growing anti-semitism in Europe, a phenoenon which they blame on Europe's growing Muslim population.

I believe that these arguments are opportunistic, spurious, and dangerous.

Their obvious goal is to provoke anti-Muslim bigotry in Europe with the hope of reaping some sort of political benefit for Israel as a result.

It probably--hopefully--won't work.

But it is a dangerous game, and has brought the present GOI into a very dangerous dalliance with European racist and Fascist movements, as seen by the recent overtures to Fini.

Trust me, I know. Much of racism is the little slights day by day and you can never see or hear. Even many attacks, slurs, incidents of vandalism, etc. go unreported because the victim is afraid or is just used to it.

OK, I doubt even people in Europe know whether a rise in anti-Semitism is directly a result of a growing European Muslim population. Especially, since the reporting for many of those nations is not good for recording anti-Semitic incidents.

However, speaking from the other side, if you see A) and you see B), it is easy to postulate that they might be linked. That does NOT mean the goal is, "provoke anti-Muslim bigotry in Europe with the hope of reaping some sort of political benefit for Israel as a result." The actual goal might be to stop anti-Semistism.

It probably--hopefully--will work by shining the light on this problem.

And actually help to exacerbate anti-Semitism. or trivialize it, since popel whoa re not really anti-Semitic are being labelled as such by some of these folks.

I think we can all agree that that would be a very bad theing.

The only way to understand either racial, religious or sexual identity discrimination is to learn it from the eyes and ears of people who experience it.

If a person of color tries to describe a racial slur, whether it's slight or blatant it's best to try to hear it through that person's eyes. To not take it as an opportunity to learn something is a disgrace.

To claim innocence because you think you are not anti-anything is to learn nothing. What isn't intended as a slur because you claim to know who you are is to keep on offending ignorantly.

Your comments above could be seen as a threat which I'm reasonably assume you don't mean but a threat nonetheless.

The saying goes, if you haven't walked a mile in another person's shoes etc. etc. Try to keep that in mind when someone tells someone else they are offended by a statement rather than jump in and try to defend that person's intentions. That is a sure prescription for learning absolutely nothing.

And it's not trivial to keep bringing these slights up nor does it trivialize them. Maybe after the hundredth time it may sink in enough for someone to say to themself "maybe I should think about that"

The hardest thing for anyone to do is look in the mirror and see something they abhor in others. We all have things to learn about ourselves and about others. To think we have learned it all and there is not much more to learn is to be spiritually, morally and intellectualy dead.

I have found myself arguing the same thing at my university when some of my more naive or pig-headed colleagues were arguing that there was "no racism" in THEIR classes, and thus denied the real experience of our African American students, wo were enduring a round of hate-mail, assaults, and administativeand academic indifference to their concerns.

Bigotry exists, and REAL PEOPLE are the ones who suffer its consequences.

But social divisions and misunderstandings can also be exploited, or whooped up, or otherwise set into motion by the ill-chosen or ill-intended rhetoric of demagogues.

We have certainly seen a lot of that in recent history.

Do you think we are overreacting to reports of rising anti-Semitism in Europe?

First--not having seen any statistics, I cnnot say for sure if the number of incidents is on the rise.

But I will take your word for it, and assuming this is so, i think it is a very very dangerous situation indeed.

The broader iaaue, it seems to me, is how to interpret this rise, if rise there is.

Sharon has argued that it is the growing Muslim presence in Europe that is a primary cause.

I don't know if this is true or not.

There may be some broad connection--after all, anti-Israel sentiment in the Muslim world is very high.

But whether it is tru or not, I do not trust the messenger in this case, since he has obvious ulterior motives: which are, in short, to identify any opposition to GOI policy or any sympathy for the Palestinians as manifestations of anti-Semitism.

Since I know from my own personal experience that opposition to a policy is not the same as bigotry against an entire people, I reject this underlying argument.

Again: I am not saying that there is no relationship between anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment---indeed, I think there IS a connection--it is just not an absolute one.

Some people who oppose Israeli policy are anti-Semites, and some are not.

I don't know who this 'we' is, but YOU have not surprisingly overreacted to any reports of anti-semitism in a way that's totally absent when it comes to other forms of bigotry...

Violet...

Try this one too.

Why is there always a BUT in your answers?

"But social divisions and misunderstandings can also be exploited, or whooped up, or otherwise set into motion by the ill-chosen or ill-intended rhetoric of demagogues."

BUT is a word in the English language.

It can be used to qualify a statement.

It suggests that there are complexities or further, perhaps significant aspects in any situation.

Here is the short version of this construction:

There is bigotry, BUT bigotry can be expolited or exacerbated.

Historical examples:

Hilter exploited and exacerbated anti-semitism.

George Wallace exploited and exacerbated anti-Black, anti-Government sentiments.

Like that.

I was suggesting that Sharon et al might be trying to exploit ani-Muslim sentiment in Europe, and that this might have unforeseen consequences....that is all.

I don't LIKE the situation, BUTTTTTTTT.....

In order to whip a thing up, it must already exist in some measure. There must also be the sloppy mental habit of group identity; the willingness to blame persons for something persons similar to them have done.

When people urge that, because the actions of the Israeli government are disliked, there must naturally be expected some increased dislike for Jews elsewhere, that habit of mind is being displayed, and that habit of mind is an essential element of bigotry. Surely anyone who holds a Jew resident in Europe responsible in any way, let alone punishable, for the acts of the Israeli government, is a bigot of the first water.

hold any Jew elsewhere responsible for Israel's policy? Most if not all here is about Sharon and his government not ordinary people elsewhere or even in Israel...

But it is hardly absent from general commentary on the question.

In their comments, and no one seemed to care.

So, is it OK to use that word now?

;)

nt

Who's this 'we' yr referring to, Muddles? Who else are you speaking on behalf of now? Or is this some sort of Royal We where you always speak about yrself in the third person ala Queen Victoria?


Violet...

So, we, despite your smart-aleck comment, is the right word.

nt

A little bit of my ancestry is Irish. That conflict has been going on for hundreds of years. And they have significant advantages over this situation. So forever war is pretty accurate.

Much more than a little bit of my ancestry is Irish, but I'm not really sure what you think Irish ancestry has to do with anything, because I'm a realist and I totally disagree with pretty much everything you have to say on the I/P conflict, especially about perpetual war and things like that....

Violet...

And agree with Violet.

I have compared the two conflicts in the past largely because I have seen hope in the solution chosen by Michael Connelly that cost him his life. He opted for both a partial state and one that did not get all of Northern Ireland. As a result, Ireland graduated slowly into statehood, but it did get there. Unfortunately, despite my hopes, there are many differences that paint a less optimistic picture.

OK, the Irish conflict has been going on for hundreds of years as an active on again, off again conflict. Despite the general history in the Mideast, that trumps the I/P conflict by several hundred years. Such a lengthy religious conflict does not bode well for those who think I/P will end quickly (by comparison).

Next, Ireland is an island. That means only two nations are easily represented there -- Ireland and Britain. That keeps outside meddling to a minimum. Despite this, the conflict flourished. Israel has no such borders and, instead has to construct them causing further conflict. The Palestinians have numerous allies in the region -- all within easy reach of Israel both militarily and politically.

Then there is religion. Although the Protestants and Catholics have been killing each other for hundreds of years, other followers of their faiths get along pretty much everywhere else. That is sadly not the case between Islam and Judaism which seem to be at odds in many places around the globe. The I/P conflict is simply the hottest of the flashpoints.

Then we have economics. For much of its existence, Ireland has been a poor country, lacking jobs and even infrastructure. Northern Ireland has been somewhat better because of its closer affiliation to Britain, but it still has not been a garden spot. That limits the jealousy between people of one region or the other. As things have improved in one, they have actually improved in the other. Now turn to Israel which has had a thriving economy and a major high-tech corridor while the Palestinians arguably live in very poor conditions. Not exactly a recipe for people to feel equal.

So, there we have it, several reasons for the I/P conflict NOT finding an easy resolution. And, scarily enough, I have compared it to a conflict that has lasted hundreds of years, and it ends up coming out worse.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There is no solidarity among the Irish here.

contradicting yourself. You hope for peace, but getting to peace includes negotiations, and you have implied in countless posts that you think negotiations are pointless.

Negotiations are the only way to peace. Peace cannot be forced on either side. What you should hope for is that Israel's leader stops stalling. Then there is a chance for peace.

I hope there are times when the glass is half full for you, not always half empty!

I have read (wish I could find that article) that now is the time for Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Not wait until they have been overtaken in numbers!