I think Ramesh makes a good point. Moreover, I too all in favor of operating according to America’s interests. However, it seems to me, that is something of a red-herring in this discussion. We can all agree it’s in America’s interest to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians. We can all agree it’s in Israel’s interest too. We can probably all agree it’s in the Palestinians’ interest — though certainly not in Arafat’s, Iran’s, Syria’s et al. But peace and “ceasefire” do not mean the same thing. Nor do “peace” and “bring the conflict to a close,” to use Andrew’s phrasing, mean the same thing. Again, for you to demonstrate that the Geneva Accords are in America’s interest, you’d have to demonstrate that they would work, particularly as-promulgated. There are no end to the number of plans, proposals, schemes, plots, accords and pipe-dreams for bringing peace to the region. The shortage of working papers has never, ever, been the problem. Seizing on this one only makes sense if the benefits of doing so exceed the costs — in terms of false hope, bad precedents, and undermining the elected government of Israel. I really don’t see how Andrew or Rich have demonstrated that this is the case.