The Last Deal, or No Deal

• Share

(2 of 2)

Ehud Barak is prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to do just that. He is ready to give the Palestinians virtually all of the West Bank, to surrender a large measure of control over Jerusalem, and to recognize a Palestinian state bordering Jordan and Egypt (which means that the perennial Israeli demand for a demilitarized Palestinian state evaporates: it will be impossible to monitor the inflow of weapons into Palestine).

Yet Arafat resisted the summit precisely because he resists finality. His strategy has always been to keep the conflict open. Why? Because when the conflict ends, his people must be satisfied with half a loaf. And while Israeli leaders have long prepared their people for serious concessions, Arafat has not. He has not moderated his demands one iota in seven years. Indeed, he keeps inflaming his people with visions of a return to all of Palestine--including Israel.

Putting an end to the conflict once and for all is Israel's objective. But not just Israel's. It is America's too. The U.S. has no great stake in the territorial details of any settlement. It has an enormous stake, however, in an end to war in the region.

Camp David cannot be allowed to produce yet another interim solution, another "declaration of principles" that leaves unresolved such incendiary issues as Jerusalem or refugees. Whatever grievances remain unresolved, whatever claims remain unrenounced are guaranteed to bring out the stone throwers. Then the machine gunners. Then the tanks. And then the neighboring Arab states, including Egypt, into battle in solidarity with the new Palestinian state. There can be no greater failure than that.