[Paul Bunyan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...TyhC_blog.html

What happened to those agreements?
Gold thinks there is some willful indifference to reality among U.S. and Israeli negotiators. He said, “Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] has been set on a course of unilateralism since 2009.” He explained that Abu Mazen wants recognition of the Palestinian state without recognition of Israel, without giving up the right of return and without the end of conflict. In fact, the Palestinians have been candid that “the right of return is an individual right and no Arab government or the PA [Palestinian Authority] can make that concession.”
Gold argues that any deal that does not secure Israel’s security is “politically irresponsible.” He emphasizes that to ask Israel now to make unilateral moves, when it does not know the identity of its neighbors, is “simply not serious."
So the issue remains: Will the United States insist that all parties live up to their commitments or will the United States publicly or privately push for concessions that violate U.N. resolutions, Palestinian commitments and U.S. obligations? Gold suggests that a “security-first paradigm” is required. Gold means that the Israeli military needs to determine what are defensible borders and that Israel needs to “use diplomacy to protect security.” If the Obama administration really does consider Israel’s security paramount, it should back those efforts.There is likely no final agreement in the offing, but perhaps an interim agreement on this basis is possible, Gold says.
He also points out that occupation of the Jordan Valley is essential for both Israel’s and Jordan’s security. (Otherwise, jihadists will conclude “the gates of Troy are open” and flood into the area, making Jordan a staging ground for terror.) He also reiterated that Israel must retain air rights over the West Bank in order to provide adequate warning time to “scramble the jets.”