Window on Israel: Peace efforts: admirable or foolish?

A Palestinian official has complained that Israel is currently offering less than was offered in the last serious efforts at reaching an accord, in 2000-2001.
 
This seems like a ploy to get the sympathy of the world, and put some pressure on Israeli negotiators.
 
Not from me. If this is true, (and truth is a problem with one-sided reports about ongoing negotiations) then I applaud the Israeli posture. In response to the Palestinians, I ask if they expect a reward from the Israelis for seven and one half years of violence under the heading of intafada.
 
The Americans are pressing the Israelis to make concessions to make the Palestinians' lives easier while negotiations proceed, and the Israelis are responding, at least partly. Against the advice of the military, the government agreed to remove a number of road blocks and checkpoints throughout the West Bank. And the Defense Minister announced a renewal of a program that was suspended some years ago, to allow several thousand Palestinians of the West Bank into Israel in order to work.
 
Later in the same day that we heard about the entry of Palestinian workers, we read that security forces had seized two Palestinians working illegally in an Israeli restaurant, who were on the verge of adding a deadly poison to the food being served.
 
An early headline reads, "We give them a chance to earn a living and they try to poison us."
 
One wonders about the chances that Israel is taking for peace. Admirable, or foolish?
 
It will only be a matter of time until there are further efforts at violence. Sooner or later, one of those efforts will succeed.
 
Will it be possible to attribute the efforts and the success to loosened security demanded by the Americans and agreed by the Israelis? The connection between loosened security and incidents of violence is not likely to be obvious. Nonetheless, it will be argued in one way or another by politicians and commentators who have a commitment to a policy of strong defense or efforts at accommodation.
 
Perhaps the basic problem of Israel's policy toward the Palestinians is, Can Israel afford to maximize security by walling itself off as hermetically as possible, yet claim to be pursuing peace?
 
I can frame the question, but I cannot envy the officials who have to decide in the midst of a dilemma confounded by the appearance that Palestinians do not seem serious about delivering their own parts of prior commitments, i.e., to control violence and incitement to violence.
 
Another part of the dilemma is that Israel is bound to live alongside Palestinians. Yet another part is that Israel must make reasonable efforts at accommodation, if only to tempt the Palestinians to cooperate, and to convince the world that we are trying.
 
Israel is not like the United States or Russia, i.e., strong enough to do what it wants, no matter how its actions are received elsewhere. It needs access to foreign markets, capital, and technology, as well as opportunities for its people to travel and enjoy cultural exchanges. Israel feels threatened by potential or real antagonism in capital cities of those countries that supply the markets, capital, technology, and culture that it wants. It seeks support by showing some flexibility toward its difficult neighbors.
 
One can quarrel with the timing and details of Israel's efforts. Last week Palestinians attacked the transfer point through which Israel moves fuel to Gaza, and killed two of the civilians working there. Israel closed the transfer point, but is likely to open it again in a few days.
 
Since Hamas took over in Gaza, there have been two Palestines, one there and one in the West Bank. At least for the time being, Israel treats them as separate entities. Its government is pursing a peace process with the West Bank, but not with Gaza.
 
In the case of Gaza, the question is, Should Israel pander to international sentiment and continue providing fuel, electricity, and other basic needs in order to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite this latest incident and continuing attacks by rockets and mortars directed at Israeli civilians? The Israeli population, military, government, and opposition politicians are each a long way from anything approaching unity on this question.
 
I am sure several of you have solutions for our problems. Taking my model from the radio programs I heard as a youth, I ask you to write your proposals in 50 words or less, and send each one along with a box top of your favorite cereal and 25 cents as a processing fee, to the address below. Useful suggestions will receive generous prizes.
 
There are some rules to this contest. Participants should realize that Israelis have considered complete surrender to Palestinian demands, and massive onslaught to Gaza and/or the West Bank for the purpose of doing away with the terrorists once and for all times. The first has been discarded by all by a small fringe of Israelis, some of whom make their ideas even less attractive by calling themselves anarchists. The second has been rejected, at least temporarily, for a number of reasons. It is likely to provoke extreme actions by other countries due to Palestinian casualties; it is likely to have high costs for Israel in terms of soldiers killed or wounded, and civilian centers bombarded by missiles from north or south; and it is likely to provide only partial and temporary solutions against the tactics and weapons that Palestinians can produce.
 
Those suggesting complete surrender to Palestinian demands must be prepared to provide appropriate housing and employment for at least one Israeli family, insofar Palestinians may not be satisfied until all of us are elsewhere. Those suggesting a heroic onslaught must volunteer themselves for service if their are physically fit and under the age of 25, or send a close relative in their place who is young enough, and fit enough for military service.