Rice and the Peace Process
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems to be dedicated to, finally, do something about the Israel - Palestine situation.
Rice’s meeting with the foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — known as the Arab Quartet — came just a few days before the Arab League plans to gather in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to reaffirm a peace offer made to Israel in 2002. The Arab initiative is a key part of Rice’s plan to reinvigorate the peace process, because she believes it is a vehicle to involve Israel’s Arab neighbors more closely in the effort.
There’s also a problem: Rice said something about Egypt, about it’s domestic issues. The Egyptian government, which is one of the few Arab governments that recognizes Israel, wasn’t too happy about that and, essentially, told Rice to bugger off.
More:
Rice “emphasized the importance of Arab-Israeli reconciliation as an element in broadening peace but also to help establish a track between the Israelis and Palestinians,” Assistant Secretary of State C. David Welch told reporters after Rice met with the ministers. Rice also met separately with intelligence chiefs from the four countries and then had dinner with both the diplomats and the spy chiefs.
Rice has insisted that she is not trying to urge the Arabs to alter their peace offer — which includes elements that Israel finds abhorrent, such as allowing Palestinian refugees to settle in Israel — but has said she would like the Arabs to provide “active follow-up to the initiative,” making it part of the peace process.
Of course she is “trying to urge the Arabs to alter their peace offer”. The offer is, in certain regards, not acceptable to Israel so… it has to be altered.
I don’t understand why you are so solidly behind everything Israel demands.
Israel wants an alteration to the Arab plan, and it’s an automatic ‘yes’, Why?
I understand why, for existential reasons, Israel can’t be blindly fair. But to me, not negotiating its demands at all seems suicidal.
So far, support for Israel has been on automatic pilot. But you can’t depend on that forever. In fact, support seems to be eroding. I don’t see how making rigid demands that kill the prospect of negotiations before they begin is helpful. It puts people off to have demanded of them something that should be given voluntarily, perhaps as part of a deal. It’s just such bad psychology, IMO.
Doma: Israel has been prepared to compromise in the past, for instance when Bill Clinton was still President.
MVG-
I wasn’t talking about who has done what, or who has been prepared to do what.
I’m taling about the tone of how Israel presents its case.
Appearances do matter, and PR matters a lot. I got this idea from my friend’s son, who lives in Jerusalem. He said: “We’ve got to stop needlessly waving around the iron rod in our spines and only bring it out at strategic times, as a reminder to others of our will, and at the end of the game, for the final plays.”
Watching Bush’s failures in diplomacy, this idea resonated. Reading the negative reactions to blog comments that begin with ‘Israel demands’ and ‘the US should’, I notice a resistance to the bullying tone.
It’s the tone and public posture, not the goals or resolve, that I worry about..
I see this is a touchy subject.
Maybe I should just shut up on your site on this subject.
That’s a fair point and I actually agree with you.