By Isabel Kershner
12/6/08
A8
Kershner’s article provides a good example of how Froman is obviously outmaneuvered by his Hamas associates. In February 2008, Froman “drafted a comprehensive truce agreement for Israel and Hamas” that included Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit’s release “in exchange for a substantial number of Palestinian fighters, and eventually, the release of all prisoners on both sides.”
The last phrase in this purported agreement confuses. Froman appears to have negotiated an agreement in which Shalit will be released in return for the release of every single Hamas prisoner. From the Israeli perspective, that is a terrible agreement.
The formulation of this last phrase itself is baffling and draws an uncalled-for equivalence. To my knowledge, there are no Israeli “prisoners” that would be relased. Shalit is the only one, and calling him a prisoner distorts the matter since he was kidnapped.
One must be skeptical of extra-political actors no matter how unusual they be. A person who acts independent of the body politic when a fine parliamentary system is in place probably represents only himself and not his fellow Jews.
Posts
Yes, this guy is pretty much a kook despite his influence. It's amazing how the NYT selectively digs up these characters to support its own position vis-a-vis Israeli-Palestinian peace.
ReplyDeleteSomething positive in this article you neglected to mention. Froman makes mention of in the event of a creation of a Palestinian state, Jews should not be uprooted from their communities. I have never seen this positive proposal (in principle) mentioned in the NYT over the past few months of coverage.
Despite some positive facets of the article, the conclusion of the article demonstrates how the NYT intended to employ this article, writing that Froman's unrealistic solution "sounds like utopia — and at this point, as realistic as anything else."
That's cutesy comment Kershner, but foolish and unprofessional.