Framing the Failure of Annapolis: Israel's Leadership

"Olmert Turmoil Slows Mideast Peace Effort" A7, 9/1/08
By Isabel Kershner

This article, in focusing almost solely on Olmert's nearing political demise, promotes the view that the weakness and instability of Israel's political leadership is the primary cause of the inability to convert the peace process began at the Annapolis Conference into a viable peace agreement.

While it is probably essential that Israel reform its electoral system in order to foster more stable, strong, and upright governance, is this currently one of the primary obstacles to a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians?

Even the author notes that there are continue to be considerable gaps in the negotiating positions between the two parties.

The article also hints at something deeper - the persistent history of Palestinian rejectionism - as represented by Mahmoud Abbas' recent meeting with notorious, and previous praise, of the notorious terrorist, Samir Kuntar. Of course, the New York Times makes no such judgment call, failing to question why Abbas would meet with such a virulent Jew-hater, instead simply sharing the Israeli government's displeasure of such ugly behavior.

And so it goes. It appears that the NYT is already framing the failure of Annapolis as an Israeli one. The usual suspect is the focus on the Occupation, settlements, and the Palestinian "root cause" (of oppression and poverty). Now, the weakened Israeli political leadership is thrown into the mix with the NYT even creating the impression that Olmert is a leader that is serious about peace, rather than a self-interested individual who is only considered about his own political preservation.

The NYT doesn't realize that with inept and egotistical leaders like Olmert, and even more importantly, with rejectionist-maximalist leaders like Abbas, there will never be a real peace.