There is no logical reason why Israel should not enter into a long-term, non-permanent agreement with the Palestinians. It’s better than what they have now. And when they break it (which they will), all bets will be off, of course. On the other hand, if a miracle occurs and Israel abides by the agreement, it can either be renewed or made permanent at that time.

The biggest reason Israel will not agree to a long term peace agreement with Hamas is that they do not want peace. They do not want to enter into any agreement where they will be held to account when they violate it, nor do they want to stop stealing land and resources from Palestinians.

In this environment, the problem with any “long-term” solution is that there is a term. Israel has to wonder what happens at the end of it.

(I acknowledge your first paragraph and have not answered it because this kind of forum does not lend itself to a fruitful discussion on that kind of issue. In any case, I think the point I have made above is key; the other issues seem relatively trivial.)

As for “extremist views,” that is a matter of opinion and of media coverage which distorts the views of Hamas and Hizbullah to conform to the “terrorist organization” meme. Israel’s settlers and many of its politicians (Avigdor Lieberman, to name one) seem pretty extremist to me.

Consider for example, the peace with Egypt; it is so fragile that in non-government circles, Egyptians having any official relationship with Israelis are ostracized. Diplomatically, Egypt is at war with Israel at the U.N.

Given the current and ongoing blatant “anti-Israeliism” and even antisemitism extant in much of that world (in government controlled media), how seriously can such a peace offer be taken? Who would guarantee it and how?

Furthermore, consideration would have to be given to the extremist views of (what used to be) non-state actors. Hamas and Hizb’allah are the best current examples. Hamas controls Gaza and might in future take over the “West Bank.” Hizb’allah is now in effective control of Lebanon. Both these groups have to date been intractable in their non-acceptance of Israel and in their official antisemitism. What would peace mean with them running neighbouring countries once Israel has taken the risk of giving up buffer land?

Isn’t this essentially the official Arab League proposal (http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_828.shtml), which is fine with me, but hasn’t Israel already rejected it?

I have a question of my own: Is anyone (Abbas, Obama, even Michael Oren) stupid enough to take his partial settlement freeze seriously? Netanyahu has publicly admitted that once it ends, the flurry of construction will resume, and so this means (unless you’re just too dense to think ahead even a little) that the so-called peace process is dead in the water at this moment, and will be even deader a year from now.

The settlers are upset because they want to build now, not next year. Other than that, they have nothing to worry about other than a temporary construction delay. Netanyahu has thrown a bone to his political opponents while still successfully maintaining his coalition. Once again, he scores. Bibi 3, Obama and the Palestinians, 0.