A Missed Opportunity for Peace
Robert D. Novak wrote a good column for today’s edition of the Washington Post:
An overriding melancholy here this Holy Week follows Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s mission to Jerusalem last week. To Arabs and Jews seeking meaningful peace negotiations, it confirmed that no progress toward a two-state solution is likely for the remainder of George W. Bush’s presidency.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected Rice’s offer to participate in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for a permanent peace treaty. The word in the Olmert government is that the prime minister’s reluctance even to begin talks at this time is fully shared by Bush. Rice is sincere in her desire for peace, but she can accomplish nothing important without the full support of her chief.
The aphorism (originated by Israeli statesman Abba Eban) that Arabs “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” now can be applied to Israel. Last week’s Riyadh declaration indicated the willingness of the Arab world to consider a peaceful solution. Now, belief here among peace-seekers is that nothing will happen until a new president enters the Oval Office in 2009.
Read the entire column at the Washington Post.
Novak’s assessment seems to be right. There is something odd going on with Olmert, and I don’t know what it is. I read three statements by him, all in quotes, on three consecutive days, and they implied three different positions. It was almost as if he had to go backstage to get new instructions,
Now, Olmert is back to insisting on preconditions which gruarantee that no talks will take place. Also, it puts Israel back into what will be perceived as an obstructionist role of preferring war to peace. I’m so exhausted worrying about the young men and women who have to fight these wars - two I know well served last year. But every ray of hope is extinguished as fast as it comes to life.
The hawkish position of equating talking with ceding anything or appeasement is dead wrong IMO. Bush has isolated only himself by this stance, and Olmert could learn from that.
Also, perceptions matter a whole lot.
Doma: we should all realize that Olmert lost a lot of credibility. Israelis are willing to negotiate with the Arabs, polls show, but they don’t trust Olmert.
Anyway, do you believe that Israel should negotiate with people who say that Israel should be destroyed and support terrorism against her?
MVDG-
When Israel agrees to negotiate, it is negotiating with the world, not just Palestinians. Israel’s public face has never been more important.
So far, Israel has reaped support from its position as the victim (and rightly so). Public perception is shifting, however, and Israel is being scrutinized as never before. When it comes across as being recalcirant and uninterested in peace, that threatens its security because it diminishes support.
It’s not fair, Michael, but the world is not fair. In poker, you have to play the hand you’ve been dealt.
As far as preconditions go, I have changed. I now think that to insist on them just kills opportunities, because the Palestinians would be required to ‘lose face’ in order to agree. Never forget the psychological profile of your enemy.
Conservatives equate negotiations with complete surrender, which IMO is dead wrong. Just talking by itself can reduce tensions enough to inspire new ideas for getting out of a dead lock.
Neither party is required to accept the final deal if that deal does not guarantee fundamental requirements. Israel can go through all the motions, perhaps gain new insights, and still say ‘no’ .
To say ‘no’ beforehand harms its image. And, as I am more and more convinved, image and perceptions are more and more important to success.