In Middle East Bog the perceptive editors of the Washington Post write:
The trouble began within days of the Annapolis meeting, when Israel’s Housing Ministry made the first of a series of gratuitous and provocative announcements about construction in Jewish settlements beyond Israel’s internationally recognized border. The most tangible of these was a tender for the construction of 307 homes in Har Homa, a controversial Jerusalem neighborhood that is wedged between Palestinian areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank town of Bethlehem. Palestinian negotiators — several of whom were closer to former president Yasser Arafat than they are to Mr. Abbas — seized on the action as a violation of Mr. Olmert’s commitment to “immediately” implement the first phase of a 2003 U.S.-sponsored “road map” that calls for a freeze on all settlement construction.
Let’s stipulate for the moment that tender to build on Har Homa was provocative. Could it still be possible that it was the post-Annapolis problems? Consider how the editorial continues.
Israeli ministers, including a couple who oppose the peace talks, rushed to tour Har Homa and to make the point that, in Israel’s view, it is part of Jerusalem and thus not subject to the building restriction. The European Union, the United Nations and, somewhat surprisingly, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized the Housing Ministry action. When Egypt joined the chorus, Israel’s defense minister said the real problem was not settlement-building but Cairo’s allowance of massive weapons-smuggling to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. A low-grade war between the Israeli army and Palestinian militants in Gaza has escalated in the past month, putting further pressure on the talks.
Notice, there are only Israeli ministers who oppose peace talks. But is Egypt’s complicity in supplying Hamas support for peace talks? Is it worthy of a single sentence dismissal?
And how, pray tell, do stepped up Israeli efforts to protect its civilians from rocket attacks put “pressure on the talks?” If Abbas objects to such defensive measures is he really committed to peace?
Herb Keinon rather explicitly rejects the Post’s spin:
While the Palestinians have done a good job over the last month convincing international public opinion that construction in Har Homa and the settlements is what is holding everything up, in actuality the more fundamental problem is not a few hundred housing units that will be built atop Har Homa, but rather the tunnels that are being constructed under the Philadelphi Corridor.When Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee earlier this week that Egypt’s performance on the Egyptian-Gaza border was “awful and problematic,” she knew well her words would complicate relations with Egypt, one of Israel’s key strategic allies. But she also knew that the ongoing smuggling from Egypt into Gaza also poses a strategic threat to Israel, as an emboldened Hamas strengthened with massive quantities of explosives and weapons would doom any diplomatic process with the Palestinians.
For a long time Hamas has been the elephant in the Annapolis process room that no one wants to talk about. But with the elephant being fed through Egypt and growing, it is impossible to ignore, and its size and strength cast a shadow over everything else.
Later on Keinon asserts that unless Israel defeats Hamas, the pressure on Abbas will be too strong for him to compromise. I am skeptical of the good faith of Abbas but this sounds a lot more plausible than to argue that Israel’s self defense “puts pressure” on the talks. Unless the Post means to imply that Israel’s self defense is not in the interest of peace.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
