Yes, it would be great if the Palestinians decide they want peace. However, throughout the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Palestinians have consistently shown that they do not want peace. The election of a Hamas government is the latest such evidence. Blinding oneself to that fact does not change that fact.

Question: What has been the single issue that prevents peace?

Answer: The existence of Israel.

Until the Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, there can be no peace. A new "unity" government in Palestine does not change this fact. In fact, I surmise that Hamas is "negotiating" with Abbas soley to look like they are cooperating to obtain international aid. Unfortunately, it will probably work.

mjrosenberg,

I believe that the release of Shalit followed by a mutual ceasefire (one in which Palestinian terrorists are actively prevented by the government from attacking Israel and Israel completely stops its targeted assassinations) could lead to productive negotiation between Olmert and Abbas....

Both Israelis and Palestinians are ready for this.

In the streets, sure.  Because of that we should remain hopeful, but cautiously so.  For as usual it's not so simple, and the political intricacies harbor grave disappointments. 

From Ha'aretz:

"Hamas should fear the moment when Shalit is released," says a senior officer in one of the security services. "Only then will its real problems begin. Everyone will expect a turning point, but without a change in the organization's policies, Israel will not remove the siege and the government will fall. The economic and security situation is only becoming worse, and with it, the corruption. During the era of Fatah rule, a special committee decided on appointments to government ministries. Now they appointed 11,000 civil service employees without a committee - only those close to the plate, relatives of ministers, friends and neighbors."

Among other things, Hamas ministers have appointed 67 new directors and deputy directors to the government ministries, and another 300 assistants and advisers. "They are smuggling millions via the crossings and paying their people salaries. They have appointed 20-year-olds as deputy directors. There is great anger among the residents of Gaza, not only at the occupation, but also at the government that has destroyed Gaza," said the officer.

The same officer claims that a Palestinian unity government will not serve Fatah, but will rescue Hamas. "They want a unity government because for them it's the last opportunity to remain in power. That's why Fatah must not join such a government."

Abbas is actually the one person who is enthusiastic about the idea of a national unity government and is trying to convince Hamas to agree to it. "It's not that he's interested in rescuing Hamas," explains a Palestinian commentator in Gaza. "Although Haniyeh has become somewhat weaker and his organization is guilty of many negative phenomena, Abu Mazen knows that there is no substitute at the moment for a Hamas government except for the dismantling of the PA. Even if the government resigns and there are new elections, Fatah is so divided and weak that it will lose the elections again."

Hamas certaintly isn't giving a yes for an answer.  At most, part of it is willing to refrain from saying no loudly while standing next to Abbas, who comes from the part of Fatah that says yes.  Perhaps, in a pre-Oslo world, such nuanced non-rejection could be a cause for hope, but after Oslo it is simply absurd. 

Imagine that Israel has elected Effi Eitam prime minister (Let's say he ran a campaign that emphasized cleaning up corruption and deemphasized his support for Greater Israel and "transfer").   Would MJ and Daniel Levy condemn international pressure against such a government as "counter-productive"?  What if Eitam consented to form a unity government with Avigdor Lieberman or Bibi as a junior partner?  Would they implore the Palestinians to ignore Eitam's views on Greater Israel and hammer out a deal with the "pragmatic" Netanyahu (who after all, has recognized the PA in the past)?  Would they support ending pressure on a radical settler government simply because of the presence of the "mainstream" Likud or Yisrael B'Teinu? 

The Palestinian unity government is a non event.  Certainly Olmert and the international community should meet with Abbas and to the extent a PA ministry is Fatah controlled, deal with it.  But the isolation of Hamas must continue.  Palestinian voters need to be given a clear choice at the polls next time: progress or purity.  Anything that muddies the water, no matter how well intentioned, doesn't advance the chances for peace.

There is little anyone can do if an un-sanctioned bomber decides to blow himself up in Israel. But at least the Israeli government would be able to easily deduce that it was a "non-official hit."

We've seen this before.

"How so?  Have you been visited from the future? "

 Mhpine - LOL - No I have not been visited by the future but I have been a long time observer of the Israeli scene. I've been going back and forth to Israel at least annually since 1966. As a result of my sister's family having an Israeli arab nanny, I have built up many aquaintenances in the mainly Israeli arab community.

 I have watched the arab animosity grow over the last 40 years to the point of visceral hatred. Sure the Israeli's can elect the Kahanists and attempt a transfer to resolve the problem. Assuming the world allows such a move (doubtful) the arabs sense of justice will manifest itself as revenge. I have no doubt that someday, somehow they WILL make us pay.

You may think I am a fool for this kind of dire prediction but it is a genuine fear. The demographics of the situation will someday outweigh our technological advantages. You have 1,000,000 plus Israeli arabs who are on a path to radicalization on par with their Gaza and West Bank neighbors. Too many Israelis' see todays military advantages and project straightline into the future a continuation of the same margin of superiority. Thus they see no need for compromise unless it's to Israel's advantage. I fear this is shortsighted as 300 million arabs and another billion plus muslims will eventually gain enough technology to penetrate Israel's defences with horrific results.

Your option 1 and 2 will not resolve the underlying issues. Until Israel withdraws to very, very nearly it's 67 borders and a compensation arrangement for Palestinian refugees is worked out peace will NEVER come to Israel. I suggest you talk with some Palestinians and see how deep the feelings run - much. much, much deeper than for Israeli Jews.

We're talking past each other a bit here.  My problem is that you seem to want to talk only about the destination, not the path.  However, I don't think there's really a chasm between our views as to what a final settlement should look like - it mainly comes down to a disagreement as to whether Israel's holding on to 5-10% of the West Bank (with or without land swaps) ruins the whole thing.  But clearly a contiguous state on most of the West Bank and Gaza and generous compensation for the Palestinian refugees should be part of any package.   

The main source of our diagreement is how to get to that solution, which requires someone willing and able to disarm the terrorist militias and police the borders of a new Palestinian state.  For some reason, doves don't ever want to grapple with this problem.  It assumed that Israeli generosity will somehow magically solve the problem of Palestinian chaos.  I don't see it.  I also don't see Islamists as part of the solution.  (And I bring up the radical settlers not to praise their agenda, but to highlight that fact.  I think you would agree that they are not part of solution, so why is it that their Palestinian equivalents somehow are?)  

The two options I provided are the only possibilities I see for actual progress towards a Palestinian state.  One possibility, and the one that most respects Palestinian self-determination, is to wait until a Fatah-led government is elected with the mandate to establish a monopoly of force and commits to a crack down of militias.  As MJ rightly points out, there is at least some precedent for this during the 1997-2000 period.  However, I am highly skeptical of this happening any time soon, while the wounds of the 2nd Intifada are still fresh.  It might take numerous election cycles for the Palestinians to finally give a government the mandate for peace and order (or it may never happen).  And as you put it, time is of the essence.   

That's why I think the second option is the better one - having an outside force can come in and disarm the militias.  I think the idea of a US or a NATO force doing it is a recipe for disaster.  Egypt and Jordan, on the other hand, have far more leigitimacy as Arab states.  If they had a UN mandate to provide interim security for a Palestinian state, it may be acceptable to the majority of Palestinians.  Plus, unlike a European or UN force, Egypt and Jordan have much greater incentives to keeping an Israel-Palestine border quiet.  They have an address.   

I'm not throwing these things out to be obstructionist.  I'm looking for a path forward here.  But it seems to me that on this issue, there are a lot of (to borrow a term from Stirling Newberry) Pony Doves.  An Israeli-Palestinian peace is so necessary and the need to ameliorate the conditions of the Palestinians so great that it just needs to be done already - the details will take care of themselves.  I don't think we need to look any further than Iraq to realize that in the Middle East, the details never take care of themselves. 

King Abdullah of Jordan on the "Beirut Plus Arab peace plan" in the September 18 Time Magazine.

King Abdullah II on Beirut Plus:

Security guarantees [for Israel] by the Arabs. The assurance that they [the Israelis] are fully integrated--socially, economically, politically and culturally--into the Middle East.

Wow.  It's like the King reads my mail.  I'm not afraid to say that this will definitely appeal to the Israeli electorate.  They need to hear about it over and over again from a myriad of sources.  Now that AIPAC is on the ropes, we need MJ's Israel Policy Forum, American Friends of Peace Now, Brit T'Zedek v'Shalom, etc. to fill the vaccum and get the word out on this.  Not only to lobby Israeli voters and to hold the Arab establishment to this pledged social, economic, political and cultural integration in the region, but to appeal to mainstream Jewry in Israel and the West to support it.

Arthur, the Babelfish you used on my post appears to be misfiring a bit. Perhaps you should take it out and clean it off with your towel. You did remember to bring a towel, didn't you?

The main problem is that it hasn't seemed to pick up the last 20 years of Israeli politics. Its not 1986, and Ehud Olmert is most certainly not Yitzhak Shamir (more importantly he isn't the Ehud Olmert he was 20 years ago.) The idea of Palestinian statehood has gone from the fringes to the mainstream. Rather than looking for ways of prolonging the occupation, Israelis are desperate to find ways to end it. The Kadima party split from the Likud for the very purpose of disengaging from following the removal of settlements in Gaza with further progress in the West Bank. Considering it the equivalent of Hamas is absurd.

When you do get a hold of good time traveling device, please join us back in the present, where we can talk about how to actually move forward. For example, if you have some magic fairy dust that transfer Hamas into a secular, non-violent movement that resembles to ANC, you shouldn't be holding out. Anyone who is trumpeting Hamas a realistic conduit towards the creation of thriving Palestinian state is either delusional or more likely not particularly serious about creating one in the first place.