Israel Matzav

What 'peace process'?

Steven Cook discusses the prospects of Dennis Ross (pictured) and Martin Indyk replacing George Mitchell as President Obama's Middle East envoy and wonders why bother?

To be honest, I am perplexed by the Obama administration on the peace process. Don’t get me wrong, I admire their collective tenacity and maybe they will get lucky, but I am a deeply pessimistic about anyone’s ability to push the Palestinians and Israelis into productive negotiations. I know, a brave position on this issue. In all seriousness, politics on either side hardly lend themselves to progress. First, it is abundantly clear that the Israelis have not given up on the occupation. As a result, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been, and will, continue to resist American entreaties that compromise the settlement project. He has apparently learned a valuable lesson from his first turn in the prime ministry—the only people who can take down a government in Israel is the right. That has been the case since the mid-1990s after Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. Netanyahu’s unwillingness to extend the settlement freeze for just an additional 60 days should indicate more clearly than ever that the Israelis are not going to compromise on much.

Second, the Palestinians are in a mess. Funny how little has been said about Hamas since September 1 when President Obama re-launched direct negotiations. Let’s review, however. There are two Palestinian Authorities: A Palestinian Authority-West Bank and a Palestinian Authority-Gaza. They are at war with each other. The PA-West Bank says that the only way to achieve Palestinian rights is through negotiations (though PA President Mahmoud Abbas spent three weeks in August trying to figure how to avoid direct negotiations), and the PA-Gaza argues that negotiations are an Israeli/American ruse that allows the Israelis more time to chew up Palestinian lands so Palestinians have no choice, but to fight. Abbas thus can’t compromise on much for fear of being perceived to be weak (actually, weaker), but that doesn’t really matter because the Israelis are not inclined to be “forward leaning” as they say inside the Beltway.

Well, I would not have described Israel's reluctance to move ahead the way that he did, but otherwise, yes, the 'peace process' is likely going nowhere. So why bother? That should be obvious: there's a fierce moral urgency to creating a 'Palestinian state.'

Labels: Dennis Ross, fierce moral urgency, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:46 PM