Reply #19: With all due respect, it is far from that simple.

[Shaktimaan]

The Palestinians already have many excellent reasons to back something other than Hamas, chief among them being that Hamas' policies are counterproductive to achieving their ultimate goals of statehood and self-determination. Moreover, it isn't Israel's job to provide options to Palestinians, it is the Palestinians' themselves. Israel's primary job regarding the Palestinians is to provide security for Israel. The needs and desires of the Palestinians don't even register in comparison. So as long as Hamas is perceived as a greater threat to its security than the long term effects of Israel's policies are, then those policies are very unlikely to change.

And its not as if you ever possibly COULD get Palestinians to settle for anything short of statehood, or short of all the West Bank and Gaza, so please stop with the "they'd know their place if it weren't for 'the leadership'" thing.

Interesting statement. Why not?

Not that I think they aren't deserving of the whole WB and Gaza, but when did that become the minimum? It certainly isn't the minimum for Hamas, nor was it for Arafat and Fatah or the PLO. The current Arab plan also requires a just solution to the refugee problem. (Presumably just the Arab one.) Then there's the question of Jerusalem.

But if they could get a deal for something like 96% of the WB and all of Gaza, then would it really be wise of them to reject it? They aren't exactly negotiating from a position of strength here. And the whole idea of the West Bank and Gaza as their rightful land for a sovereign state is relatively new anyway. Jordan only abandoned their claim to it 20 years ago, it's not like this has been the plan from the get go. Heck, even Rabin originally envisioned something "less than a state" for the Palestinians, and that was fairly recently... meaning that if the whole idea of sovereignty is kind of newish in itself, how could the terms of it be so set in stone?

My point is that it seems many people make very arbitrary assumptions about what would be acceptable for a peace deal versus what would be a permanent dealbreaker. I personally think it would benefit the Palestinians long term interests to remain more flexible in their requirements. At a certain point there has to be a cost benefit analysis performed. What is it worth to them to finally get down to the business of building their state instead of perpetually fighting for the right to even have one at all?