Powered by WebAds

Thursday, December 09, 2010

False start

I'm used to false start being a football term in which someone draws an opposing player over the line of scrimmage by moving in a way in which he's not allowed to move. Richard Fernandez applies the term to the most recent iteration of the 'peace process.'
Perhaps the biggest weakness of the current peace process is that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis want it under the conditions the other is likely to give. Ironically, Washington may be more interested in the “peace process” than either party. This creates a situation in which both sides can extract concessions for merely showing up. As long as one or both parties retains a desire for absolute victory the process will be doomed. Only when both parties are willing to settle for a long-term, mutual coexistence is any peace remotely possible. The current group of negotiators may have misjudged the situation and mistakenly believed the time was ripe for a deal to be struck. The postponement of the talks suggests they now know they embarked on a false start. The wish cannot always be father to the deed.
My own view is that most Israelis really do want a 'peace process' that will lead to real peace, but after 17 years of negotiating with the 'Palestinians' through one terror attack after another, they're not convinced that 'peace' can ever happen. And yes, I believe that both sides dream about absolute victory, but if we win the 'Palestinians' would likely be invited to stay and live in peace, while if they win, God forbid, we won't need to worry where to go.

But this was definitely a false start, and most people here identified it as one long before the talks broke down.

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

<< Home