Time to admit failure?

The following article is a rather hypocritical assessment as to why "the peace process failed" because it apportions blame on the Palestinians -- "each side tried to improve its positions" and thus causing the staged process to fail. Of course, the real reason is that Israel could get away without having to negotiate for anything, and just impose its "solutions". Rubinstein conveniently forgets what Dov Weisglass stated: negotiations would be put in formaldehyde. So, it is not an issue of apportioning blame, for Israelis it should be clear what the implications are of avoiding negotiations at all costs.

And then Rubinstein states: "The violent struggle between Fatah and Hamas is not good for Israel." What nonsense is this? One can see Halutz, Olmert and the rest of the motley gang gloating at the prospect of a Palestinian civil war. Israel has a hand in it: putting the occupied territories under siege and giving a green light for the delivery of weapons to Fatah...
---

Time to admit failure
By Danny Rubinstein

Abstract:


It may already be too late for Israelis and Palestinians to be able to reach an agreement using the present format. The methods attempted by the sides thus far, and which for a moment seemed as if they were about to succeed, have failed. The peace process that began with the shake-up created by the first intifada almost 20 years ago has apparently reached the end of the road.

Many Palestinians, and many Israelis as well, estimate that the present period is among the worst in the history of the conflict in this land. The violent struggle between Fatah and Hamas is not good for Israel. Palestinian spokesmen reject out of hand any attempt to describe their situation as a civil war. Some say it is "a war of organizations," which is a more accurate description. Whatever the case, after the extensive coverage of the meeting between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), two weeks ago, one of the Palestinian journalists declared that it is now clear to him that on one subject there is no difference of opinion among the rival Palestinian groups: They all agree that the State of Israel does not want peace.

In hindsight, we can point to one of the reasons for the painful failure of the peace process. The method of working toward an arrangement in stages, without a decision being made a priori on the final goal, did not work. The problem was not in the stages, but in where they were meant to be heading. Therefore, in every stage of the diplomatic process, each side tried to improve its positions, in anticipation of both the next stage and the final goal that suited it.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said a few days ago that his movement is not blocking any diplomatic path - for the simple reason that such a path does not even exist at present. He is right. In order for such a path to exist, there has to be much more than concern on the Israeli side for the Palestinian "fabric of life" (the catchphrase of the Israeli defense establishment for the easing of restrictions) and promises to dismantle settlement outposts. We have to agree on the end of the process, in which a Palestinian state will be established within amended borders of the 1967 cease-fire lines, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Without that there will be nothing.