I have always been cynical about peace talks advocates. You see, I have a rather healthy respect for the problems in the way of concluding peace talks. I suspect that some of those who propose peace talks do to. So I have always suspected that many of those who talk peace peace expect occupation to continue in the absence of any successful realisation of that peace. That their real policy, is to perpetuate occupation while in endless peace talks co-existence with a PA. They want civility, but they do not want an end to occupation. They see a peaceful occupation as serving as a de facto eretz Israel (including settlements loved by the right, their occupation ally) and a de facto unitary state. Where both sides have their cake and eat it too. Their end goal is either a unitary state or a bi-national state. They see this as a way to a secular state instead of religious rule on both sides of the ?fence?. They are simply waiting for Pals to agree. Meanwhile Pals have a Hamas government who wants 67 borders? This along with convergence from Kadima, leaves the Eldar left and the eretz Israel right insecure. Myself I favour convergence. It offers a step towards a two state peace and a disengagement (from intrusive over-settlement). From there, EVERY option is easier. It?s a downpayment on a better future. Those who resist this move must be imagining that all the WB occupation settlements can continue on in perepetuity. This is somewhat delusional.
U.S. Republican John Kasich says he is suspending his presidential campaign (Reuters)
from the article: The landlord's craziness