The two state non solution in the Middle East

NY Times:

The new government of Israel is seeking to reorient the country’s foreign policy, arguing that to rely purely on the formulas of trading land for peace and promising a Palestinian state fails to grasp what it views as the deeper issues: Muslim rejection of a Jewish state and the rising hegemonic appetite of Iran.

Advisers to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are drafting policy suggestions aimed at forming a framework that he plans to present to President Obama at their first summit meeting, in Washington on May 18. In addition, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman left Sunday for Europe on his first official visit, and on Tuesday, President Shimon Peres is to meet with Mr. Obama in Washington.

Such an ambitious effort to reformulate the conflict will be, by all accounts, tough to sell for two reasons.

First, even though the standard approaches have not yielded success, no alternative has emerged.

Second, the Obama administration has repeatedly backed the two-state solution, as have the Europeans. In other ways, too, this White House has seemed to be closer in outlook to Europe than the past administration was.

Israel’s effort to switch the discussion to Iran is likely to be met in Washington and in European capitals with the assertion that it is precisely because of the need to build an alliance to confront Iran that Israel must move ahead vigorously with the Palestinians as well as with the Syrians.

“President Obama views the region as a whole, and trying to isolate each problem does not reflect reality,” said a senior American official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the American policy was still in formation. “It will be a lot easier to build a coalition to deal with Iran if the peace process is moving forward.”

...

I think the Obama administration is living in a fantasy world if they think there will be a two state solution and that if it is done it will somehow lead to a resolution of the Iran's determination to destroy Israel. In fact it will only make Iran more determined to scuttle the talks. And it is easy for Iran and its Hamas proxies to do so by ratcheting up attacks on Israel whenever negotiations are under way. That is what Hamas and Islamic Jihad did in the early years of the Bush administration when they sent their young people out to explode among Israelis.

The fundamental problem with the negotiations is that the Palestinians have nothing of value, i.e. "peace," to offer. The party signing the agreement will not undertake a civil war among fellow Palestinians to give Israel peace. And if it did so it would probably be fighting its own intifada. In fact this is Israel's best out. Israel should insist that the Palestinian Authority undertake to stop all attacks on Israel from within its territory. That is an entirely reasonable demand that also happens to be a deal killer for the Palestinians.

It is really time we get passed the fundamental error that is pushing this policy. Besides the ones already mentioned is the fact that an agreement is not as important as many in the region claim. If it were they would be putting more pressure on the Palestinians to stop the conduct that is getting in the way of peace. All they would have to do is cut off the funding of the terrorist and their families. Once Palestinian dependency is removed the Palestinians will have some incentive to reach agreement.