69 million page views

state for peace and the open triangle of exchange

Reader comment on item: Interpreting the Israeli elections

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.

Submitting....

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".

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (12) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
1Indifference is how I feel. Israel needs a true Jewish government. [54 words]Phil GreendFeb 9, 2013 10:11203355
Video tip to save time and sanity [49 words]EdwardFeb 3, 2013 15:10203100
The full force of their army? [69 words]ybrandstetterJan 31, 2013 10:29202999
2The fogotten problem [110 words]Gunther SchiffJan 29, 2013 00:48202928
1Interpreting the Israeli Elections [270 words]Marjorie Stamm RosenfeldJan 28, 2013 22:09202920
2A million dollar reward! [264 words]Abu NudnikJan 28, 2013 10:20202894
1Oriana Fallaci on Arafat [49 words]UgriJan 30, 2013 04:42202894
1state for peace and the open triangle of exchange [273 words]mythJan 28, 2013 07:46202888
Yes Myth, great points [86 words]saraJan 28, 2013 18:56202888
3No possibility of peace [121 words]JFKARJan 28, 2013 06:15202884
2Reply to British Sunday Times and its filthy Scarfe Jew-hate cartoon [192 words]Palestinian propaganda promoted by BritzJan 28, 2013 03:17202875
British Perfidy [76 words]EdwardFeb 3, 2013 07:04202875

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)