With regard to the upcoming "Roadmap to Peace," I would be interested in hearing anybody's thoughts on the following. It is my understanding that many say that the United States' success in Iraq has provided us with renewed leverage not just in the Arab world but with Israel. I think this is plausible. I also think that Bush might be ready to do some pretty serious arm twisting on both sides. With the Israelis this means halting expansion (at least) of settlements and possibly (and I think ultimately) dismantling of many of the settlements. I have no doubt that Sharon has little taste to do this, but he has been making noise that he might be willing to do so if the result is a true peace. Often people have asked whether Arafat can deliver the Palestinians in any peace agreement. I think there are to answers. "No -- even if he wanted to." and "He never had any intention of delivering them anyway." I wonder, however, when it comes to dismantling settlements, can Sharon deliver the Israelis? I believe that most Israelis would give up the settlements for peace. If Israel had not be forced into the 1967 war in the first place they never would have had the land to make the settlements. Thus, I think the majority of Israelis would be happy enough with pre 1967 borders with adequate changes made for security (though the security concerns may be less of an issue due to Israel's nuclear deterrent).

But, I am under the impression that the settlers are not so amenable to relocation. There are a lot of them and I understand them to be quite militant (ie, god given right to the land, etc). Could we be facing a situation that in the face of diminishing Palestinian violence (I know that is rather optimistic) we will see a new destabilizing problem of Israeli militant violence. If I am not mistaken we have seen whiffs of it before in the settlements. Anybody have some ideas on why this won't be a problem?


- posted by Anonymous @ 6:13 PM