Scowcroft said:
---------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the current administration's intense efforts over the past year will not resolve the issue by Jan. 20. But to let attention lapse would reinforce the feelings of injustice and neglect in the region. That could spur another eruption of violence between the warring parties or in places such as Lebanon or Gaza, reversing what progress has been made and sending the parties back to square one.
---------------------------------------------
WRONG. The biggest explosion of violence occurs when there is MAXIMUM movement and large-scale Israeli concessions. Arafat's suicide bomber war began just after Israel withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon and Israel made major concessions (basically agreeing for the first time for a complete withdrawal to the pre-67 lines) at Camp David and later at Taba. Also, wars broke out in Gaza and Lebanon shortly after the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Israeli concessions simply stimulate Arab extremism and violence.

Scowcroft said:
---------------------------------------------
Resolution of the Palestinian issue would have a positive impact on the region. It would liberate Arab governments to support U.S. leadership in dealing with regional problems, as they did before the Iraq invasion. It would dissipate much of the appeal of Hezbollah and Hamas, dependent as it is on the Palestinians' plight
-----------------------------------------------

What does HIZBULLAH have to do with the Palestinans? They are Lebanese, and Israel withdrew from Lebanese territory 8 years ago.
HAMAS says they will never agree to peace with Israel and their popularity has increased over the years. If the Palestinians wanted peace, wouldn't they reject HAMAS' appeals? HAMAS became more popular the more Israel made the concessions I mentioned above.

Scowcroft said:
-----------------------------------------------

The major elements of an agreement are well known. A key element in any new initiative would be for the U.S. president to declare publicly what, in the view of this country, the basic parameters of a fair and enduring peace ought to be. These should contain four principal elements: 1967 borders, with minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon modifications; compensation in lieu of the right of return for Palestinian refugees; Jerusalem as real home to two capitals; and a nonmilitarized Palestinian state.

---------------------------------------------

Again, the mythical "well-known terms of an agreement". But Scowcroft says no return of refugees. The Palestinians have never agreed to any such thing and they never will. They don't view the refugee sitatuation as a "humanitarian problem", to be solved by financial compensation and resettlement elsewhere, for them, it is an existential weapon to be used against Israel. And why should the refugees be entitled to compensation for losing a war that the Arabs/Palestinians started?
Scowcroft can talk all he wants about dividing Jerusalem, or "sharing it". Dividing it means destroying it, means turning it into a shooting gallery, which is what happened when Israel withdrew from Bethelehem and Beit Jallah and gunmen took over these places and used them to fire into Jewish Jerusalem. Scowcroft lives thousands of miles away, he would never have to face the terror that would rip the city apart, he probably doesn't care, either...you know "pragmatism", "big power politics", etc.

Scowcroft says:
-----------------------------------------------
But if the peace process begins to gain momentum, it is difficult to imagine that Hamas will want to be left out,
-------------------------------------------------

Again, the usual treatment by "well-meaning" Westerners of the Arabs like retarded children. "They don't know what is really in their interest, the great Father in Washington knows what's best for them". HAMAS says they will never make peace with Israel, but Uncle Brent looks into his tea leaves and somehow knows they will come around if he tells them to.

Scowcroft says:
------------------------------------------------
This weakness can be overcome by the president speaking out clearly and forcefully about the fundamental principles of the peace process; he also must press the case with steady determination. That initiative should then be followed -- not preceded -- by the appointment of a high-level dignitary to pursue the process on the president's behalf, a process based on the enunciated presidential guidelines. Such a presidential initiative should instantly galvanize support, both domestic and international, and provide great encouragement to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
-------------------------------------------------

Clinton was fully committed for years to the "peace process". He had a "strong" Palestinian leader whom, it was claimed, had enough credit on the Palestinian street (i.e. blood on his hands) to "deliver the goods". Yet they all came up empty, in spite of the Nobel "Peace" Prize Arafat won along with Rabin and Peres. So once again we hear the myth that "if only the President would really get involved and force the two sides, he could get an agreement". Totally wrong. American had the "Best and the Brightest" get them into Vietnam. The 1990's also had other geniuses think that Oslo would bring peace. Instead it brought unprecedented death and destruction and the collapse and division of Palestinian society, making it clear to the world that the they do not want a state (The Palestinian leaders like Abbas want American and EU money to keep coming, as it is now, with no strings attached yet none of the responsibilities of running an independent state)
Scowcroft is just the latest in a long series of deluded "pragmatic big-power diplomatic players" who have failed and will continue to fail as long as they stay wedded to non-starters like "territories for peace" or the mythical "2-state solution".

If I had to bet on which would happen first, an Israeli attack on Iran or a Mid East peace settlement, I'd bet on the attack on Iran.

Something like 40-60 percent of presidential campaign funding (for both parties) comes from Jews, and 40 percent of America's billionaire are Jews. Is the issue of Israel not a factor for at least a sizable minority of this political giving?

My guess would be in 7 years we end up with a swiss cheese Palestinian State proposal that is rejected amid timely and "indiscriminate" bombing attacks in urban Palestinian neighborhoods.

Supporters of the proposal will wonder why the Palestinians rejected 97 percent of the West Bank, and never learn that the other 3 percent was a series of walls and roads that separated the West Bank into a series of prisons.

At least it will avert a civil war among Jews...