It's 'Peace for Peace' not 'Land for Peace' - Avigdor Lieberman

It is interesting that in FM Avigdor Lieberman’s discussions with the Japanese and Romanian Foreign Ministers and Middle East Envoy Tony Blair, he stressed the point that where the Golan Heights were concerned, the formula should be ‘Peace for Peace,’ since in his view Israel was not interested in a complete withdrawal from anywhere.
How flattering. He must have been reading your Jerusalem Post ''Featured Blogs,'' because in the follow-up to my piece on February 9th: ‘The Stupidity of Sinai and Mubarak’s Demise’ on February 16th: ‘The Stupidity of Sinai, Part II: Turning the Tables’; I stated in response to a talkback that ‘Land for Peace was a foolish precedent to follow for a land-poor country like Israel.'' 
''Land is just what Israel does not possess, whereas the Arab/Muslim World encompasses about a fifth of the world - perhaps more. It’s like asking a beggar to shed a few more of the patchwork clothes he has - only through the greatest sacrifice and pain – managed to cover his body with.''
''No, it should not be, "Land for Peace." It should have been and still should be, "Peace for Peace." That’s what anyone with "dignity" would have required; but how can you teach "dignity" or "pride" to a People that has been so mistreated and humiliated – even annihilated - over the last 2000 years?''
''How can a country with hardly any land to give, give anything up except under the most extreme conditions, when the other side has so much land they hardly know what to do with it all? At least they know the value of "Land" if Israel or the Jewish People don’t or, what is worse, have forgotten.''
This was a follow-up to my original point in the February 9th piece complaining about ''the foolishness'' or ''stupidity of Sinai,'' where I attacked the absurdity of setting a precedent of full withdrawal, saying: ''In a War, someone had to lose something. They should not expect to be bailed out by the International Community the moment things start to go "south."''
''Otherwise they would just begin over and over again as they have nothing  to lose - which has more or less been the history of the last 30 years since Sinai.'' Moreover, ''Once Israel had returned everything to Egypt and completely withdrawn from Sinai, no future Arab Country would settle for anything less and none ever has.''
It is very gratifying to see that, so soon after the publication of these articles, FM Lieberman has picked up this very point in his discussions with the Japanese, Romanian FM’s, and UN Middle East Envy Tony Blair in his Press Conference centering on the Golan Heights the other day, where he announced that Israel''s policy there should not be ''Land for Peace'' but rather – just as I argued in the above two ''Stupidity of Sinai'' pieces two weeks ago in this paper - ''Peace for Peace.'' I am so happy to see that my pieces are making such an impression on the Government - or is it just a coincidence?