In a New York Times Editorial no less.
Despite these efforts, true peace seems as distant as it did before the secret talks in Oslo were revealed to the world. The government of Israel must admit that we made a mistake and declare that the Oslo process has failed.
Basically it runs a long the lines.
It is all the Palestinians fault.
Palestinians alone are responsible for the carnage.
From Nakba Day to the present.
Never mind the continued dispossession by illegal settlements of the West Bank.
Never mind the isolation of the Palestinian people and the division and reduction of Palestine itself.
It is up to the Palestinians to make all the concessions.
What people on god's good earth would give up as their own lands are stripped from them, would Americans?
A three state solution?
In the short term, the Palestinians will continue to have autonomy over their civilian lives while Israel remains in charge of security throughout Judea and Samaria, commonly referred to as the West Bank. Following an initial period, the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria could continue to develop their society as part of an agreement involving Israel and Jordan. Similarly, Gaza residents could work with Israel and Egypt to create a society that granted them full civil authority over their lives in a manner that was acceptable to all sides.
Syria is forgotten in this,
the Lebanon ignored. What chance do the Palestinians have in regional support when the whole place is either on fire or smoldering? When can the
Palestinian refugees find dignity?
If the Oslo Accord is pie in the sky this new proposal is even less likely.
Danny Danon seems to be asking for concessions from the Palestinians without any concessions in return, what about the return of the lands illegally usurped? Basically he is saying the Palestinians must behave and Israel remains in control of all that is important and profitable.
He thinks this is a serious proposition?
He also only quotes statistics from one side, here is a more balanced viewpoint
Sorry, I know the I/P discussion in the US is very one sided and as soon as Israel is criticized the expressions of antisemitism start. However this piece on the Editorial page of the New York Times is completely biased and one sided and offers nothing new.
So the two state solution is dead, how long before the three state solution becomes to mean only Gaza? Historically Palestinians have only lost land and economic security after every "agreement". Is this proposal any different?