"In Israel, Rice Faces Limited Prospects for Peace Process"
A12, Friday 11/7/08
By Isabel Kershner
This article details Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Israel as part of her Middle East trip to reinvigorate Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that began with the Annapolis Conference in November 2007. Coming into the waning months of the Bush Administration, Rice has finally conceded that peace will not be achieved by the end of 2008.
Despite this setback, Rice states, "It is our expectation that the Annapolis process has laid groundwork which should make possible the establishment of a Palestinian state when the political circumstances permit." While there has been greater cooperation between the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority (PA) in the security sphere as of late, largely because of a mutual fear of a Hamas takeover in the West Bank, Rice's assertion seems quite exaggerated. As Kershner observes, within the Annapolis framework "fundamental issues of the conflict have not yet been resolved, including the borders of a Palestinian state; security arrangements; the fate of Palestinian refugees who left their homes in 1948, or were forced to leave; and the status of Jerusalem."
When it comes to understanding why these negotiations have not led more far-reaching results, Kershner places customary focus on the U.S. and Israel in arguing that "the transitions and upheavals affecting politics in the United States and in Israel have already effectively frozen the talks." There is no immediate mention of the deep division in the Palestinian body politic, with Hamas in firm control of Gaza and the PA precariously maintaining control over the West Bank. How can peace be achieved when one's peace partner does not even maintain firm control over the territory that is to be negotiated?
Beyond this, Kershner makes it appear as if the PA is a good faith partner while neglecting to mention its continued incitement against Israel, rejection of Jewish history/presence/sovereignty in Israel, as well as its failures to curtail and destroy terrorist entities in the West Bank. While the PA may be succeeding in implementing law and order in Jenin and Hebron, where its forces have been allowed to operate more robustly with Israeli accord, this is not the same as dismantling terrorist infrastructure as required by the Roadmap.
This overbearing focus on U.S. and Israeli actions, while neglecting problematic Palestinian behavior and political developments, is a staple of NYT reporting.
[Also to note: In relation to Israeli elections, Kershner writes, "Mr. Netanyahu [of the right-wing Likud party] does not favor the model of negotiating a two-state solution, arguing instead for building an “economic peace” between Israelis and Palestinians from the bottom up." Through this somewhat sloppy use of language, it may appear that Netanyahu rejects the two-state solution. While he may have a different vision of how this may be achieved by placing less faith in the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, he has not rejected the two-state solution as the paradigm for resolving the conflict.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It's refreshing that Kershner mentions as one of the negotiations' "fundamental issues" security for Israel, or "security arrangements". However, her rendering of another issue – "the fate of Palestinian refugees who left their homes in 1948" – is problematic. Here, the term "refugee" is really put to the test. It's accurate to say that Palestinian refugees are those who left or were forced out in 1948. However, it's the fate of the millions of these refugees' descendants that is the real issue here.
ReplyDeleteKershner reports that at a news conference, Livni and Rice noted a stark difference from eight years ago, when "the second intifada was raging". The use of passive voice neutralizes Palestinian agency.
Kershner points out that what differentiates Annapolis from previous peace processes is its "efforts to build institutions of Palestinian statehood". However, she doesn't pursue what kind of institutions these are and whether they're democratic. Surely, such a revolutionary development warrants at least minimal elaboration.
Kershner mentions the alternative vision of the opposition leader and front-runner for the post of Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu takes issue with the "model of negotiating a two-state solution". He advocates an "economic peace". Does his version of peace include a Palestinian state or a West Bank withdrawal? If so, after how long a time period? These sorts questions go unasked.
While most of the article faults the Israeli democratic process for the stalling of negotiations, at the end of the piece Kershner points to a possible power-sharing agreement between rivals Hamas and Fatah as another impediment to the peace process. This is not due to Hamas actively seeking Israel destruction, which Kershner neglects to inform readers, but to Israeli intransigence. As Kershner writes, "Israel has refused to deal with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas."