Processing …

Michael Goldfarb was recently in Israel, among his observations:

The land for peace paradigm is dead. It didn’t work. The Israelis gave up southern Lebanon and got a war with Hezbollah. They gave up Gaza and they now have a hot war in the south with rockets hitting Sderot daily. There is no chance that the Israelis give up the West Bank only to see the same thing happen, especially given the West Bank’s proximity to the economic heart of Israel. Which only further contributes to the paralysis–the old paradigm is dead, but nothing has yet developed to take its place. Even the country’s peaceniks are horrified by the turn of events in Gaza–they are no longer pushing for a similar withdrawal from the West Bank.

The people we spoke with painted a very bleak picture, and yet life goes on in Israel. The economy is booming, the bars and clubs are full, and the country, outside of Sderot at least, is enjoying something resembling peace. We drove around the West Bank and saw almost no evidence of violence. The security fence has had the desired effect, and despite all the talk about checkpoints and their impact on the daily lives of Palestinians, we moved relatively freely from one end of the territory to the other. I was also struck by how empty the West Bank is. Despite the attachment some settlers have to the land, most Israelis seem willing to cede the area in exchange for peace. That just isn’t possible given the current fractures in the Palestinian body politic.

Yet Ha’aretz goes on promoting more active American involvement (even pressure on Israel) in the “peace process.”

The senior official saw fit to explain that when it comes to the peace process, Bush does not intend to behave like a lame duck. We can hope that he will follow in the footsteps of the three presidents who preceded him: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who did not end their involvement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even after the American people had elected their successors. Pressure to put an end to the bloodshed and guarantee the Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic country is welcome pressure.

Yes, that involvement from President Clinton really helped matters didn’t it?

I think that his comment really hit much closer to the mark though.

If the Palestinian extremists were only willing to throw stones and tear down the occasional structure, then I am sure that more Israelis would be willing to negotiate with Hamas. Until that time, Palestinian extremism will be a much more significant obstacle to peace.

If Israel thought that ceding land was safe there’d be peace. No amount of American involvement though, is going to move the peace process forward unless there’s a significant change of heart from the Palestinians. Ha’aretz, though, is only capable of blaming Israel first and not of any measure of critical thought.

Crossposted on SoccerDad.