As is so often the case in all issues related to Israel, The New York Sun this weekend has some of the best commentary around. Specifically, on its op-ed page, columns by David Twersky and Hillel Halkin, both of whom I once had the pleasure of editing back in the day.

First, Twersky:

This is a great clarification. The scales
are off. Israel has no peace option with the Palestinians at this
juncture.

…

This
leaves Israel with fewer, though better clarified options. Essentially,
the dovish proposition that under the right circumstances a fullbore
peace treaty can be negotiated with the Palestinians lies in ruins, for
now no more useful than a Crusader castle. The major dispute among
Israelis will be between those in Kadima, arguing for a better
deployment vis-à-vis the impossible-to-deal-with Palestinians, and the
Likud, arguing for a stand-pat, change-is-weakness strategy.

There are those who want to point to this election as a repudiation of Bush’s democracy-promotion doctrine in the region. But perhaps the Hamas win is evidence for the other side — that shaking up the status quo is more of risk, but has far greater potential dividends than staying the course.

Halkin makes a similar point to Twersky’s, but takes it a step further:

For the last five years, since the outbreak
of the second intifada, Israel has been in an absurd position. On the
one hand, it has had to deal with a feeble Palestinian Authority that
encouraged or condoned terrorism, was unable to control its own
population, and could not possibly have kept any peace agreement it
might have signed.

…

But the mask is now off the
Palestinian Authority at last and the road map can be thrown into the
wastepaper basket — and with it, the 1993 Oslo Agreement and everything
that stemmed from it. There is no longer any reason, from their own
perspective, for Europe and the United States not to say openly: “Since
the Palestinian people has elected a leadership that no Israel
government can be expected to deal with, we will in the absence of a
better alternative support an Israeli withdrawal to the security fence
and recognize that fence as Israel’s de facto border.”

Such
international recognition is precisely what is needed to convince
Israelis that, despite the colossal political, emotional, and logistical
difficulties involved, such a step is worth taking. The time has come
for a deal between Israel and the world. Once it is made, Hamas can ask
for its commission.

The fact is that Israel is going to build its wall, and that will essentially be the border. There is no other option. In the best of faith, Israel does not have — and has never had — a negotiating partner. America has played an unfortunate role in prolonging a futile peace process. Now, we can correct that error by standing behind Israel in any decision it now takes as to how it wants to proceed.

How any U.S. or E.U. aid could keep flowing to the Palestinian Authority after this point is a mystery to me. And how anyone could object to the completion of the wall would be an equal mystery — if we did not already know the true agenda of those who would deny Israel peace.