US support of PA undermines compromise

Foreign Policy reports on a talk Pres Clinton gave on peace prospects . Here's a few things he got wrong;

-The "most pro-peace Jewish Israelis" are the Sabras, who he described as native-born Israelis whose roots there date back millennia, because they have the benefit of historical context. "They can imagine sharing a future."

- But if there's a deal on the table, that would create enough pressure for an election in Gaza that President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party would win, Clinton argued.
- "I believe if there were an election in Gaza today, Fatah would win because of the greater prosperity and the greater security produced under Abbas and Fayyad,"

- He pointed to the fact that two-thirds of Israelis trust Netanyahu to make a peace deal,

- he has faith that the current Palestinian Authority leadership is serious about reaching a settlement.

- Because of the high Palestinian birth rate, Israel will become a Palestinian-majority state sometime in the next 30 years, if it does not give up the West Bank.

He also said that 6% of the land contain 80% of the settlers whereas in his day it was 3%. Even if today's figures are right and the PA concedes 6% of the land which they are not near ready to, still over 100,000 Jews would have to be resettled.

Why does he not suggest letting Israel retain 10% of the land so that few Israelis would have to be moved. From the Arab point of view, they would be getting 90% of the land instead of 98% or so. Now they don't appear to be demanding 100% of the land. In a normal settlement process, when you get 90% of what you want that's considered a terrific deal.

Since the PA depends on US money, the US could force this outcome in a blink. Instead the US keeps supporting the PA so they can refuse to compromise.

If you experience technical problems, please write to