The Washington Post has a pretty good editorial on the upcoming proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Israelis and Palestinians are ready to begin talking — sort of:
INDIRECT TALKS between Israelis and Palestinians appear finally set to begin, after a two-month delay that showed the Obama administration’s diplomacy at its worst. The trouble started with an errant announcement by Israel of new housing construction in East Jerusalem; President Obama chose to escalate what could have been a blip into a public quarrel, in the apparent hope of extracting a series of concessions from Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
The editorial also observes an irony:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas seemingly wants to postpone that day as long as possible. He has insisted on indirect talks even though he has participated in direct negotiations with Israeli leaders for two decades; in 2008, he refused to take up a far-reaching peace offer from former prime minister Ehud Olmert. The Palestinian leader now appears to be counting on the Obama administration to do his negotiating.
This analysis of the situation is excellent. The editorial, though, disappoints towards the end:
It’s true that Mr. Netanyahu’s current right-wing coalition is unlikely to accept some of the terms that would be necessary for peace, such as Palestinian sovereignty over part of Jerusalem. Even his current defense minister says Mr. Netanyahu needs to form a more centrist government.
What is “necessary for peace?” The terms necessary for peace were basically those offered to Abbas by Olmert that, the editorial noted, was rejected by Abbas. So the Post is advocating rewarding Abbas for his obstructionism – he gets the same deal that he rejected – and blames it on Israel. But as the Post noted Abbas wishes for the Americans to do his negotiating for him. And yet the Post says to indulge him.
The Post’s focus on the current Israeli government is misleading for other reasons. For one thing it is not “right wing.” Perhaps it is further to the right than the previous government had been, but the government represents a consensus of the Israeli public.
Second of all, nothing at all is mentioned of what wing the Palestinian government consists of. So let’s go back a year to an interview about the rejected Olmert offer. Here’s Saeb Erekat:
“They will never have this. Like President Abu Mazen said in front of President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert: I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. East Jerusalem is an occupied area, just like Khan Yunis, Jericho, and Nablus were. Its status in international law will never be anything else. Therefore, any arrangements regarding East Jerusalem are categorically unacceptable.”
This is not the language of a moderate. This is the utter rejection of compromise. And while the Post is very good in exposing Abbas’s cynicism, it doesn’t recognize his intransigence.
In a similar vein, Barry Rubin wrote:
What is needed to understand the issue is precisely what is not presented by policymakers, academics, and all-too-much of the mass media: The PA neither wants nor is capable of delivering a compromise peace agreement.
Radicalism within its ranks, in public opinion, and the ever-present challenge from Hamas ties the hands of leaders who are not so moderate themselves.
Belief that if they continue the struggle or keep saying “no” or subvert Western support for Israel they will get everything they want without giving up much is too tempting.
Prof Rubin’s conclusion is that peace is not at hand but negotiations for a better working relationship between Israel and the PA could be useful.
This is the critical element that the Post misses. It is still looking at a peace deal mostly dictated by Palestinian demands. Until the Palestinians change, peace is just not possible.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
