Ted Belman of Israpundit asks a very important question on his site today: Will Israel agree to a Palestinian state in principle? Meaning will they make an agreement contingent on Palestinian assurances of disarming terrorists and guaranteeing that a state would not be a threat to Israel’s security.
A contingency agreement as described above would be a little like putting a binder to purchase a house, in truth it only binds one party the Seller, the buyer can keep on looking for another house but the seller is not allowed to make a deal with a different buyer.
Such would be the case with an agreement in principal. Israel would be in limbo, she would become the caretaker of the West Bank and Gaza, wouldn’t be able to do anything with it. No security outposts, no police actions etc.
Additionally when the Palestinians start complaining that they don’t have the juice to disarm the terrorists (as they always do) how soon does the international community pressure Israel to ignore those contingencies? My guess is around 15-20 minutes.
The danger of a contingency agreement is very real. Today Israeli Vice Premiere Ramon said that even if a framework for a final status agreement is outlined at the conference, it will not be implemented until the Palestinian Authority, led by PA president Mahmoud Abbas and prime minister Salaam Fayad, is strengthened (source JPost).
The state in principal is a state that Israel must avoid at all costs. The problem occurring is that the Israeli government is moving ahead with a “Peace at Any Cost” attitude and are not truly considering the consequences of their actions.