Originally Posted by doggin94it
Yep. I've talked about this with a number of relatively senior Israeli policy folks/experts - my Synagogue has a pretty amazing Scholar-in-Residence program; we've had everyone from pundits to retired government officials in - and that's the primary Israeli concern. I think it's a real one, but also one that can be addressed by sufficiently iron-clad verbiage to require the European countries to follow through; if so, the left street's reaction and the Arab world's reaction won't really be important, in the long run. The most important point is that type of provision would line up the incentives in such a way that there would actually be a rational basis to believe that the Palestinians might keep the deal; if 2 dead Israelis means the loss of Jerusalem, perhaps the balance will lean away from Jew hatred - if only because they know whoever does it would be forever reviled by palestinian society.
Interestingly enough, the most common reaction to the proposal from the "pro-palestinian" folks is exactly what was described above: "but it's not fair that the entire society should lose from the actions of a few" - in other words they, like the "pro-Israel" folks, are inclined to believe that, their own public protestations notwithstanding, the "end of the occupation" won't actually bring peace at all.
Which, again, leads to the question "in that case, why should Israel bother"?
That's my fear as well - and Israel's too, obviously. But that's exactly why a max-min deal makes sense. If you told Israel today that they could have internationally recognized control over Jerusalem and major settlement blocs and the end of international support for Palestinian claims over those areas if they recognized a Palestinian state in Gaza and a more contiguous "Area A" within the West Bank, they would leap at that deal even if there was no "peace" that came with it. By the same token, if you could guarantee Israel that the 67 Borders + Land Swaps formula would actually lead to peace, they would leap at that as well.
Israel's nightmare scenario is a 67 Borders + Land Swaps deal that doesn't lead to peace - meaning that Israel would have made critical concessions and not only received nothing in return, but made themselves more vulnerable to that continued war.
The problem, of course, is that is the most likely outcome. So for people to be focused on pressuring the Israelis is exactly the wrong approach if people want to achieve peace. Israel won't - can't - accede to a deal that leaves its worst nightmare as the most likely possibility. So either Palestinian society needs to fundamentally change to the point that the likely outcome is actually peace (which was supposed to happen throughout the Oslo process - it's precisely for that reason that one of the critical Palestinian commitments, entirely ignored, was ceasing incitement), or the Israelis need to be given incentives to take that risk. Carrots for the Israelis, not sticks, are what will make a peace deal possible.
And no, "peace" isn't enough of a carrot - not when no relevant policymaker believes they are actually likely to receive it.