What does "we" mean?
This is from a David Horovitz article in the JPost about President Bush's claim that 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President “Shortly after Annapolis, the two sides opened negotiations on a peace agreement, with Ahmed Qurei representing the Palestinians and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni representing the Israelis...,” Bush writes. “We sent financial assistance and deployed a high-ranking general to help train the Palestinian security forces...I believe the second "we" refers to the Bush administration. But even if it doesn't, it's irrelevant. The deal that Olmert offered is no longer on the table. And Olmert should have resigned in disgrace in August 2006. It would have been the only decent thing to do.
“The negotiations resolved some important issues, but it was clear that striking an agreement would require more involvement from the leaders. With my approval, Condi [Rice, the secretary of state] quietly oversaw a separate channel of talks directly between Abbas and Olmert. The dialogue culminated in a secret proposal from Olmert to Abbas.”
After detailing that proposal, the former president continues: “We devised a process to turn the private offer into a public agreement. Olmert would travel to Washington and deposit his proposal with me. Abbas would announce that the plan was in line with Palestinian interests. I would call the leaders together to finalize the deal.
“The development represented a realistic hope for peace,” Bush writes. “But again, an outside event intervened. Olmert had been under investigation for his financial dealings... [and] he was forced to announce his resignation in September.
“Abbas didn’t want to make an agreement with a prime minister on his way out of office. The talks broke off in the final weeks of my administration, after Israeli forces launched an offensive in Gaza in response to Hamas rocket attacks.”
The president uses the word “We” twice in this passage – in the first case, fairly clearly to refer to his administration: “We sent financial assistance.”
But what of the second case, “We devised a process...”?
If the “We” here refers to Bush, Olmert and Abbas, that would indicate, dramatically, that the Palestinian leader was indeed ready to accept Olmert’s terms, and would tie in to Bush’s reference in the next paragraph to “The development...” – implying that something of true substance had been achieved. It would also accord with Bill Clinton’s recent comments.
If, however, the second “We” is much like the first, and refers to the president and his key administration officials, it carries less significance. It certainly suggests Bush held expectations that Abbas would sanction an agreement. But it does not contradict Olmert’s “he never came back to me” narrative or Abbas’s “gaps were wide” comment, and means that the president’s account offers no new definitive answer.
We’re been trying to get clarification from the former president himself. Watch this space...
Labels: Ehud K. Olmert, George W. Bush, Jackson Diehl, Middle East peace process
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:14 PM
3 Comments:
I know Abbas is a weasel and Obamas a broken reed but I hope the guys of Yesha can go along with the proposed band-aid to salve the Anointed One's ego and put the ball back in the Weasels' court--East Jerusalem is excluded--just for three months guys, Israel can always do whatever it needs to do if the Wind in the Willow crowd puts on their put-put kefiays and rid Toad's car to unilateral "statehood". Do us a tova.
------
Under the plan Israel would "declare an additional suspension of construction" in the West Bank, land it captured from Jordan in a 1967 war, for 90 days.
Building begun since a moratorium ended in September, would be halted, the source said.
The proposed construction freeze would not include East Jerusalem, an area Israel has annexed as part of its capital in a move never recognized internationally and which Palestinians want as capital of any future state.
Washington would also undertake to veto resolutions deemed anti-Israel in the U.N. Security Council and other international organizations, the source said, a pledge that could make Israel less vulnerable to threats made by some Palestinians to declare statehood unilaterally in the event that peace talks fail.
There is NO deal. And with the proposed three month revanant freeze extension on the table again, Israel is really negotiating with itself. Will acceptance of it bring the Palestinians back to the table?
Of course not! Then why is Israel even entertaining it?
What could go wrong indeed
Well Bibi is now presenting it--Jerusalem is off the table of a freeze which is an immediate plus--if Abbas doesn't come back then the other construction resumes--but he may--you never know--for better or for worse, for good or for bad....Israel is also negotiating with the Americans and this is what they want now--at least they recognize Jerusalem as "special" tho' I know that this will not satisfy where a lot of folks are coming from but am hoping that as a temporary expedient this can be supported for now for what it is.....
Post a Comment
<< Home