The Washington Post reports, Tough Options For Clinton on Trip to Mideast, with a sub-head of
“Analysts Urge Radical New Approach To Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process”
What are those “tough options?”
Any new peace effort would be complicated by other factors, including the prospect of a new right-wing Israeli government hostile to the idea of a Palestinian state and the splintering of the Palestinian leadership into a moderate faction that runs the West Bank and a radical group that controls the Gaza Strip. Israel waged war in December against the militant group Hamas, which controls the narrow coastal strip that is home to almost half the Palestinian population, and it has kept a tight grip on crossings into Gaza, making it all but impossible to begin reconstruction.
So let’s see. A new right wing government in Israel is an obstacle peace. But those rockets from Gaza? Apparently they’re a naturally occurring phenomenon. Nothing anyone can do about them, so Israel might as well lie back and enjoy them.
One option for solving some of these impasses is mentioned:
Hamas and its moderate Palestinian rival, Fatah, also have begun talks on creating a unity government, which would complicate U.S. diplomacy. During a meeting in Washington last week, Clinton told Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, that she hoped such efforts succeeded, according to league Ambassador Hussein Hassouna. But in the VOA interview, she said that unless Hamas meets international conditions for recognition, “I don’t think it [a unity government] will result in the kind of positive step forward either for the Palestinian people or as a vehicle for a reinvigorated effort to obtain peace that leads to a Palestinian state.”
So peace could possibly come about by having the more moderate Fatah come to terms with the terrorist group Hamas. But that would only “complicate” U.S. diplomacy. Why isn’t that described in terms of “the moderate Fatah is considering reconciliation with Hamas that is hostile to Israel’s existence?” At least Secretary of State Clinton seems to realize that.
I’ll give the reporter, Glenn Kessler, credit for citing Elliott Abrams’s Weekly Standard article.
The issues are so complex that some analysts are advocating a radical rethinking. Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, proposed scaled-back goals in a recent article in the Weekly Standard that was highly critical of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s efforts to reach a deal. “It is time to face certain facts: We are not on the verge of Israeli-Palestinian peace; a Palestinian state cannot come into being in the near future; and the focus should be on building the institutions that will allow for real Palestinian progress in the medium or longer term,” he wrote.
Of course, Abrams is saying that the problem is not complicated at all. The Palestinians are demanding more than any Israeli government is willing to give, especially after 15 years of bad faith. And the Israelis are not going to give the Palestinians what they demand.
Kessler concludes with an opposing view.
From the other side of the political spectrum, Nathan J. Brown, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in a paper published last week that the effort to create a two-state solution “has come to a dead end” and that it is “time for a Plan B.” He advocated a clear and perhaps even written cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, which could be broadened into an armistice. The effort would require breaking the taboo against speaking to Hamas, but he argued that the taboo has been broken because of indirect negotiations. “The question is whether to make a virtue out of necessity of declaring it open,” he wrote.
Yes, a right wing Israeli government is an obstacle to peace. Not talking to a terrorist organization is a taboo.
The new situation in the Middle East presents reporters with new opportunities to portray Israel as intransigent. Glenn Kessler succeeded magnificently.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
