Soccer Dad

Channeling Abba Eban

Biur Chametz has a provocative post "Prediction: There will be no Palestinian State." Though he does qualify it a little bit, that is the gist of his entry.
I don't know if I agree with his reasoning. If he's correct, the reason there will be no Palestinian state for the foreseeable future is because Palestinian nationalism is as much (or more) about destroying Israel than it is about creating a Palestinian state. Given the destructive nature of the ideology I can't imagine that they will create enough independent institutions to make the functioning of a government possible. (If Arafat had cared about creating a state he would have seen to it to foster industry. All he cared about creating were redundant security services.)
It's an excellent read.
While you're at Biur Chametz check out "Does Clinton have a problem with the Truth?" I'd just add to Biur's observations that if Clinton (and the world) had reacted negatively to the "Tunnel Riots" of September, 1996, there might not have been the "Al Aqsa Intifada." The Tunnel Riots occurred, not because Israel opened a tunnel, but because Arafat's popularity at that time was in decline. The abuses of the PA had caused massive dissatisfaction and, at least in one place (Kalkilya or Tulkarem, I think) , a large portrait of the Ra'is had been torn down. Arafat needed a way of restoring his possibility so he needed to rally his people against Israel. PM Netanyahu had explained what would happen to the Waqf and offered to allow the Waqf to open an extra gate to Solomon's Stables. But the Waqf stayed quiet when Arafat started making his outrageous claims.
Instead of condemning Arafat for fomenting violence with his false charges against Israel, Clinton (and the rest of the world. To Herschel Shanks in the Washington Post Netanyahu had "tunnel vision" to Leonard Fine in the Forward Netanyahu wasn't just incompetent he was evil too etc etc) instead faulted Netanyahu.
But what if Clinton had taken the lead and said to Arafat that playing the "war card" (as Charles Krauthammer correctly called it) was unacceptable and that if he wanted American support for a Palestinian state or that if he wanted American money he couldn't resort of violence every time he was unhappy? But that wasn't what Clinton did, he blamed Netanyahu and let Arafat's blatant violation of the Oslo Accords pass without a mention. If Arafat had been taught that there was a price to pay for non-compliance there might have been a different dynamic in 2000. Rather Arafat learned that there were no consequences for waging war against Israel. Clinton taught him well.
For Clinton the real obstacle to peace was Netanyahu's insistence that Palestinians comply with the terms of the treaties they signed; he didn't even support Netanyahu on the Hebron Accords that he himself had guaranteed! Palestinian violations of those treaties were to be ignored. He was the perfect Peace Now president.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.