First we start with a warm-up piece by Akiva Eldar in support of Mitzna and his willingness to negotiate in the face of “terror.” We follow-up with an article by Danny Rubinstein which argues that the compromise proposal put forth by former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon and the PLO representative in Jerusalem, Dr. Sari Nusseibeh fo a just and lasting peace may be gaining support among the Palestinian public. It’s an uphill battle on both sides.
First a quote from Eldar:
“Nobody asks why the attempt to reach a permanent agreement with the Palestinians won only four-to-five months of grace (though according to Barak, the Taba talks were nothing more than an exercise), while the military option, even though it has been proved repeatedly to be weak and lead nowhere, gets an infinite amount of chances. The negotiations for an agreement in Northern Ireland and Cyprus have gone on for decades, but the opponents do not give into difficulties nor to terrorists. They are not demanding their partners be changed. But here, on our side, the mere readiness to sit down to negotiate with the rival is considered “a prize to terror,” and a politician who proposes giving another chance to the political option is considered a novice.”
And now Rubenstein:
“When Palestinians see and read about Israeli soldiers reoccupying the Palestinian cities, it’s nearly impossible to persuade anyone that there are partners for negotiations and peace in Israel.”
Sadly the same can be said on the Israeli side where Israeli’s see and read about blown up busses and attacks on civilians.
At this stage I can’t see the two sides reaching a sane solution without outside intervention of some sort.
By the way, I know many Palestinians see Nusseibah’s idea of giving up on the right of return as unjust. And it probably is. But, as I’ve written elsewhere, justice must be tempered by compassion.