status quo

The status quo on the West Bank is not sustainable: the Palestinians have no rights. If Israel had conducted an immaculate occupation: one without settlements, the lack of rights would probably have been less egregious and certainly the justification of "security" would be more reasonable and not dispelled by the charge of "land grab".

The "Geneva Accord" reached by Yossi Beilin and Yaser Abed Rabbo in Geneva December 2003 represents a "realistic" agreement of partition. Palestinians who advocate ignoring this "accord" because it does not redress the injustice of 1948 have my sympathies. There was much suffering by the Palestinians before 67 and those who wish to address it cannot be denied their day in the public court. But never before or since have higher ups in the Israeli elite and in the PLO ruling party put their signature to an agreement and so "realism" dictates that we should look to the nearest bridge to cross the river towards a better future and this is that bridge.

My support for Israel is almost automatic: lacking a time machine to assess dangers and possibilities I give Israel the benefit of the doubt, backing up their skepticism regarding the infeasibility of a one state solution.

As far as those who prefer different borders than those agreed upon by Beilin and Abed Rabbo, I cannot prove the justice of "my" set of borders rather than your own, only to the fact that Beilin and Abed Rabbo have signed onto the one set of borders and not on the borders that you have in mind.