“The West Bank Scene,” by Ms. Nida Tuma, appearing in the June 8-14, 2012 issue of The International Jerusalem Post requires a serious reality check.  The heart of Ms. Tuma’s piece is to be found in the paragraph which reads as follows:
“Indeed, this is (the Palestinian’s) only hope, that responsible leadership emerges on both sides, leadership that is unwilling to play Russian roulette with the economics of a politically volitile situation and that is willing to address objectively the major issues such as settlements, the Right of Return, Jerusalem, the Green Line and water.    . . .  “
When set forth as directly as this, it becomes incumbant, in my opinion, to help explain to Ms. Tuma why it is unlikely there will be an agreement forthcoming between the Palestinian authority and the Israeli government anytime soon.  Let’s go through Ms.Tuma’s points.
  1. Responsible leadership (Israeli and Palestinian)
Israel’s leadership stems directly from it’s democratic and parliamentary form of government.  When we speak of the Israeli leadership, we essentially know who and what we are dealing with.  As to Palestinian leadership, which is it? That of Hamas or that of Fatah?  Or, Is it an amalgam of both?  Hamas has never ceased its military assaults on Israel.  The destruction of Israel is codified in its national charter.  That means that neither Hamas nor an amalgam of Hamas and Fatah is an entity with which Israel can negotiate.
So let’s focus on Fatah, currently headed by Abbas.  Here we have several problems.  First, for whom does Abbas speak?  For the Palestinian people in the West Bank, or for his many supporters, and specifically, Islamic supporters, who give him political support in the UN and contribute to his funding through many and varied channels?  
With Egypt and Jordan, Israel had a fairly good notion as to whom they were dealing with.  In the case of Jordan, it was with a king whose people were largely Palestinian.  If they were to overthrow him, it would make clear that the political base of the Palestinian people had shifted eastward over the Jordan River -- not the appearance the Palestinians there would care to leave.
In the case of Egypt, Israel (and the U.S.) felt they were dealing with a strongman with whom a binding peace could be made.  We see now how solid the foundation was on which that assumption rested.
And, then, there is one more problem.  If there were a peace agreement between Abbas and Israel as to land, then, according to Abbas, such an agreement would not give Palestinian refugees Palestinian citizenship.  So, what are we talking about?

1. Settlements
        This is really a matter of terminology.  The eastern portion of Jerusalem is not a settlement despite what Ms. Tuma and other Palestinians may think.  Land that had been held by Jordan (not by individual Arab families) and had fallen into Israeli hands, and then developed by Israelis are not a settlement.
        Israel has littlel interest in displacing Arabs from land which is theirs and on which they’ve lived in a continuous manner.  The expansion of settlements is nothing more than Jews building on their land.  This point becomes  obvious when you examine statistics on the amount of actual land Israelis have claimed, year by year, over the last 10 years.
2. The Right of Return
Is this issue related to a peace agreement with the Palestinians or not?  If the refugees are not to be Palestinian citizens, who then speaks for them?  Will it be Abbas who won’t give them citizenship?  Never before in history have a people been so egregiously manipulated against their own interests as have the Palestinian people.  
       As many Jews were driven from their homes in Islamic countries as there were Palestinians fleeing the advance of Muslim armies marching against Israel.  The Jewish state took in its Jewish refugees and provided them with various kinds of support.  Perhaps, this  simply demonstrates the difference between the Jewish culture and the Islamic culture.  One thing is clear, Israel must never permit the return of Palestinian refugees.  Let the Islamic countries in which they now reside give them citizenship.  Let Arabs, for once, give real support to their brothers rather then giving them signs to hang around their necks and sending them out to beg.
3.  Jerusalem
This city is at the heart of the Jewish faith, but not mentioned once in the Quran.  Indeed, the city was not given a name even when Mohammad’s horse is alleged to have been tied to a post outside the walls of the Jewish temple prior to Mohammad mounting him and flying up to heave
When Jordan gained control of the territory on which the Temple stands, Jews were prohibited from praying at their holiest site.  But, when Jews dislodged the Jordanians (in a war the Jordanians had precipitated), the Jews allowed the Muslims to maintain their mosque even though it had been built atop the Jewish temple.  The Palestinians now insist on getting everything back that the Jordanians lost.  But, Ms. Tuma, here’s how it works in the real world.  You start a fight.  You then lose the fight.  It’s now your loss; not that of the party you've attacked  
Also, it’s arrogant to insist upon taking back land from which you, or other Arabs, orignally displaced Jews.
4.  The Green Line
So what have we here?  A line that once demarked the line of truce between the Jordanians and the Israelis?  It’s historically interesting, but has little significance today.  The Israelis never wanted to govern the Arabs.  They know full well that a religion that permits no people of other religions to reside within the Arabian cities of neither Mecca nor Medina holds in remarkably low regard other religions.  It is no secret to Jews that religious Muslims will never find it satisfactory to live in peace with Israeli Jews.  So why not live apart?  But, why, exactly, should the Muslims draw the lines of separation?
5. Water
Israelis and Palestinians have long discussed water usage.  And, indeed, have worked together to deal with their mutual shortage of water.  This conversation is ongoing and will very likely continue for a very long time.
Finally, mention should be made of Ms. Tuma’s phrase, “play Russian roulette with the economics of a politically volitile situation.”  This is a matter over which Israel has little control.  In Arafat’s day, intifadas were called whenever he saw fit to call them.  Those intifadas were painful for the Israelis, but they were more painful by far to the Palestinians.  We can only hope that, in the interest of the Palestinians, Abbas will not be tempted to call for another Arafat-like intifada.  Right now, the surrounding Arabs, such as the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Lebanese, and even the Turks seem terribly preoccupied.  I doubt they would even know where to look for a roulette wheel with which to play, Russian or otherwise.