Apologies for the long break: college applications and all that.

This is from the Economist:

"To counter that view, Israel must show not only that it is too strong to be swept away but also that it is willing to give up the land—the West Bank, not just Gaza—where the promised Palestinian state must stand. Unless it starts doing that convincingly, at a minimum by freezing new settlement, it is Palestine’s zealots who will flourish and its peacemakers who will fall back into silence. All of Israel’s friends, including Barack Obama, should be telling it this."

Israel is unwilling to give up land because the trade is an unfair one. Israel is giving up land -- a tangible, quantifiable object -- for something good-will, something that is intangible and unquantifiable. Another problem the Economist neglects is that Israel cannot ever trade land for another quantifiable concession. In the Cold-War the Soviets and the Americans could multilaterally decrease their nuclear stockpiles because there were no rogue elements who would continue building the expensive equipment.

This blog, two years ago, hosted a series of posts about the democratization of warfare. It is precisely that which will make peace impossible. Hamas cannot promise to withdraw from its tunnels and cease its rocket-fire because of its decentralized nature. The weapons come from elsewhere (the US points to Iran), and should Hamas decide against warfare, the suppliers will supply anyone who is willing to continue the Israel campaign.

The Arab states will continue to see Israel as an enemy as long as it serves as America's sphere-of-influence in the Middle-East. The so-called "Hundred Years War," like its European namesake, involves more than just the Palestine area. It is an entire region's collective resistance to American power; it is also America's long arm protecting its energy interests.

As long as Palestine is the proxy for two conflicting interests between America and the Arab states, Israel and Palestine can never find peace.