a plan … involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders … backed by Tzipi Livni …

when did she ever undertake to withdraw to pre-1967 borders?

One advantage of this story appearing in London – you have to go Mondoweiss to see what the day's news is.

The devil is in the details. The Arab World has subsequently "interpreted" their proposal.

Even with the Arab League offer, even a changing ground, the ball is largely in Hamas' court. If they accept it, and not just accept 67 borders as Palestine, but 67 borders as ISRAEL as well, then it is likely to result in a unified Palestinian government, capable of negotiating THAT deal with Israel.

If Hamas rejects it, then the prerequisites of Palestinian coherence, and actual prospect (thereby marginalizing the Israeli fanatics), fail, and we're back where we started, for another generation.

Every step is a dare to, and then later BY, the fanatics that prefer conflict over reconciliation.

To say that its in Israel's court is a falsehood, even as there are things that they definitely could do to affect Palestinian attitude.

But, maybe Hamas will in fact be marginalized, if they don't compromise.

For fanatics, its more convenient to have enemies in office, than sympathizers.

HAMAS's acceptance would be de facto:

In 2006 letter to Bush, Haniyeh offered compromise with Israel
By: Barak Ravid
Haaretz
14 November 2008

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037258.html

A few months after Hamas` 2006 election victory, leader Ismail Haniyeh tried to start a dialogue with U.S. President George W. Bush.

Haaretz has obtained a written message from Haniyeh sent to Bush via an American professor who met with Haniyeh in the Gaza Strip. Haniyeh asked Bush to lift the boycott of the Hamas government and pressure Israel to maintain stability in the region.

On June 6, 2006, Haniyeh met Dr. Jerome Segal of the University of Maryland in the Gaza Strip.

Segal had been involved in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for many years and was one of the first Americans to meet Palestine Liberation Organization leaders in the late 1980s, even passing messages from senior PLO figures to then U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz. Segal`s academic work brought him in contact with senior State Department and National Security Council officials throughout the Clinton administration. However, the relationship was severed during the Bush administration.

At the time of the meeting, Hamas was trying to establish its three-month-old government under an international boycott. The Quartet for Middle East peace had called on the organization to recognize Israel, disavow terror and honor existing agreements.

At the end of the meeting, Haniyeh dictated a short message he asked Segal to transmit to President Bush. Haniyeh spoke Arabic and Youssuf translated his words into English. Segal took down the letter in his notebook and Haniyeh and Youssuf both signed it.

Haniyeh wrote in the missive, `We are an elected government which came through a democratic process.`

In the second paragraph, Haniyeh laid out the political platform he maintains to this day. `We are so concerned about stability and security in the area that we don`t mind having a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and offering a truce for many years,` he wrote.

Haniyeh called on Bush to launch a dialogue with the Hamas government.

`We are not warmongers, we are peace makers and we call on the American government to have direct negotiations with the elected government,` he wrote. Haniyeh also urged the American government to act to end the international boycott `because the continuation of this situation will encourage violence and chaos in the whole region.`

Upon his return to the U.S. several days later, Segal gave State Department and NSC officials the original letter.

In his own letter, Segal emphasized that a state within the 1967 borders and a truce for many years could be considered Hamas` de facto recognition of Israel. He noted that in a separate meeting, Youssuf suggested that the Palestinian Authority and Israel might exchange ambassadors during that truce period. This was not the only covert message from Hamas to senior Bush administration officials. However, Washington did not reply to these messages and maintained its boycott of the Hamas government.

Under the Arab Union plan 1048 refugee return would be subject to Israel veto.

Israel will fight this tooth and nail for many reasons. A peace deal between Isr and Pal and the ME in general will lessen the Lobby's rationale for massive US aid to Israel. Saving the US taxpayers 30 billion in Israeli aid over the next ten years would a good goal for us to say the least.

Steve Clemons at the Washington Note recently suggested that a plan would have "to be imposed" on Israel. Even Clemons finally sees the light. Some real sticks are going to have be applied to Israel to get them to give up Greater Israel.

I do think Obama has enough public support to do what Bush I tried to do in conditioning US aid on Israel giving up the settlements. Congress and the "Lobby made Bush I back off his threat but pressuring Obama that way might not work.

Obama could use his campaign machine on the public on this issue. The public is going to be watching this President as they have never watched one before so any issue he is on the public will be all over. Linking the fact that a peace deal would do away with taxpayers forking over billions every year to Israel..especially in light of our current economic condition when we are already being told finances will prevent the dems from doing what they promised the voters on a lot of domestic issues would up the ante even more for the public.

Plan may also be intended by Obama to isolate Iran, gain leverage
for Iran to negotiate no nukes. If Syria gets GH back, less partnering with Syria behind the scenes. Arab nations afraid of Iran, and popularity of Iran with Arab Street. Also might be floating plan to
isolate Iran from Russia–perhaps the Obama carrot for Putin would be killing the US-backed missile system at his borders? Put could walk away a winner in his own people's eyes…