"In Israeli Vote, With Two Parties Nearly Tied, the Winner Is Gridlock"
A6, Thursday 2/12/09,
By Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner
Bronner and Kershner report in a fair and straightforward way the immediate aftermath of the Israeli election – the political “wrangling and deal making” in the weeks ahead. There’s also reference to the growing calls within Israel of reforming its electoral system.
However, they somehow fashion Avigdor Lieberman a bigger two-state solution advocate than Netanyahu. “[Lieberman’s] willingness to create two states,” is contrasted with Netanyahu's wanting "to build an economic peace with the Palestinians, but has been vague about the need to uproot Israeli settlements in the West Bank or help the Palestinians create a state.”
Netanyahu has advocated building up a Palestinian economy, linked with Israel's. He's also stated that "the Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves, but none to threaten the security and existence of the State of Israel."
It’s unclear how this is being “vague about helping the Palestinians create a state," or at the very least more vague than Lieberman, who has spoken very little of the specifics of achieving Palestinian statehood.
Bronner and Kershner then offer the official Palestinian statement on the election, and in so doing unwittingly expose the Palestinian Authority's hard-line positions. Saeb Erakat “said Israel needed to send a clear message it was committed to the two state solution.” (emphasis mine)
Erakat demands that Israel “totally freeze all settlement activity” and “deal seriously with the Arab Peace Initiative”. Erakat lays a trap with this language. In large settlements that even the PA has agreed will remain part of Israel, new apartments cannot be built and roads cannot be paved? Basically, these communities' lifelines are held ransom by talks that can be dragged out indefinitely. This irrelevent demand just provides an excuse for pulling out of negotiations.
As for the Saudi Initiative, when Israel tries to deal seriously with it, it is told that the plan, which unrealistically demands full withdrawal to the 1949 cease-fire lines, is “take it or leave it.” The plan, as opposed to Israel's response, is not serious.
The problem here, though, is what’s not reported. Abbas’ international campaign to isolate and even sanction any Netanyahu or right-wing lead Israeli government, despite US intentions to work with any Israeli leader for an agreement, would’ve been most relevant here. Again, with this newspaper, such Palestinian intransigence is either whitewashed, or outright ignored.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteNice work on dissecting the language of the entire article. Too bad the problem can't be solved by linguists, etymologist, and other language fettishizers who are armed with swords of subtext, interpretation, and minutia.
Speaking of words, you said that Israel tries "to deal seriously" with the Saudi Peace Initiative. What does the verb "to deal" mean anyway? I'm surprised such a master linguist as yourself uses a verb, when not used in the context of cards, that is so vague as to be virtually impotent.
The problem here, though, is what's not (I would bold and italcize 'not,' but no doubt you guys disabled those functions, preventing commentators from being as emphatically indignant as you are) written about.
What would it mean for the Palestinian to negotiate in earnest with Israel?
What would it mean for Israel to be an honest partner with the Palestinians?
When you answer, please consider how South Africa's process of Truth and Reconciliation can be used as a model for Israeli and Palestinian healing.
To promote healing:
What is imperative for the Palestinians to say to Israel?
What must Israel say?
Daniel, the commentator,
ReplyDeleteDaniel, the poster, was quoting Erekat who used the phrasing "deal seriously."
Your suggestion that we, at How Fit to Print?, have disabled the emboldening and italisizing functions sounds, frankly, conspiratorial. You may have picked up this outlook up from run-of-the-mill pro-Palestinian advocates.
To your questions, which are posed in earnest.
Negotiating in earnest with Israel would mean an end to the Conflict for Palestinians.
Regarding your second Q. Are you suggesting that Israel is not "an honest partner"? If so, please evidence this claim. If it is evidenced, then the Q can be answered.
Unfortunately, your request that the answerer "consider how South Africa's process of Truth and Reconciliation can be used as a model for Israeli and Palestinian healing" demonstrates your susceptibility to anti-Israel propaganda, which seeks to tie Israel's predicament to that of South Africa in the public mind.
For the moment, I will use the feely-touchy language of "healing" since you have chosen it. Palestinians can say that they respect the Jewish right of self-determination in eretz Israel.
Israel has said that it will compensate refugees of the 1948 war, as a means toward healing.
Hi Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
1. dealing with Saudi Initiative.
As Matt explained, I was playing on Erekat's choice of words. Specifically, I was speaking to how Israel has responded to the initiative.
2. What would it mean for the Pal. to negotiate in earnest with Israel?
For one, they have to stop undermining Israel. Global campaigns like Abbas's recent "Likud=Hamas" and pushing for war crimes charges against the IDF are both wrong and have to end. Not to mention the ubiquitous two decade old PACBI campaign for BDS -- encouraged and funded by the PA.
The incitement has to end, as well as promoting the right of return and resistance; action against militias...as well as the hard-line negotiating positions (no 49+, no state w/out an army, sovereignty over the temple mount) that serve as an instant out for the PA.
For Israel to be an honest partner, it must follow up these measures by freeing movement in the territories and dismantling the settlements outside the fence -- starting with the outposts. Israel has already taken these measures w/out these Palestinian moves.
Though I share Matt's concern w/ S. Africa connotations, I think a Truth & Reconciliation Commission may put to rest a lot of myths that need to be dispelled.
What they need to say to each other I think is best summed up by this Judea Pearl piece:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=1040490&contrassID=0&subContrassID=0#resp
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response.
I am interested to know what you and your partners make of the following article by Martin Indyk and Richard Haas from Foreign Affairs.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090101faessay88104/richard-n-haass-martin-indyk/beyond-iraq.html?mode=print
right off the bat i'm disappointed with the obama admn. "forging a final-status agreement". how can people mention "final-status" with a straight face?
ReplyDeletegood point about military action against iran being last-ditch and unattractive....another good point about israel showing tolerance for extended diplomacy
good point about creating conditions now that'll make diplomacy succeed later, but those are some serious conditions. on the bad, he understates, i'll say ignores, the fundamental staying power of resistance...and that it wouldn't diminish if the PA sought to end the conflict -- if it wanted or was capable.
good point generally about "managing" the middle east
"The president himself should also send a clear message to the Muslim world that the United States is at war not with Islam but rather with small groups of violent extremists acting against the basic tenets of Islam."
Yes he should...though it's untrue.
the "raising the banner of double standards" line is shallow...and trite.
the coup de grace:
"Nonetheless, given Hamas' control of Gaza and its support among at least one-third of Palestinians, a peace process that excludes it could well fail."
search for the logic there. containment perhaps, but peace process? get real.
what do you make of it?
ReplyDelete