October 10, 2007: What's going on in Jerusalem?

A lot of peace talk is in the air for the first time in years. Why now? Does anyone have analysis? Is there reason not be cynical?

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

My friend and colleague Noah Pollak is awfully cynical, and I agree with him. He's been writing great stuff over at Commentary lately.

It is trite but necessary to note that if peace conferences led to peace, the Levant would be the most tranquil place on earth. There is a long list of cities and names associated with Arab-Israeli peace initiatives: the Rogers and Allon Plans after the Six Day war; the Geneva Conference in 1973; the Second Geneva Conference, which never ended up happening; the Madrid Conference in 1991; the Oslo Peace Process, inaugurated in 1993; the Hebron Agreement of 1997; the Wye River Memorandum in 1998; the Camp David Summit of 2000; the Taba Summit in 2001; the Beirut Summit in 2002; the formation of the Quartet and the issuance of the Road Map in 2003. Today, the next stop on the Peace process�s world tour has been announced: Annapolis, Maryland, sometime in November. The band is back together again.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at October 10, 2007 3:05 PM

The one very major issue that is never mentioned in all of this is contiguity.

It is brushed over in this article with Rice saying "of course the Gaza and West Bank are one".

Has there ever in the history of the world been a successful country that did not have contiguity on land or at least water?

How the heck can you expect a Palestinian state to survive (or Israel) when one part cannot have access to the other part without traversing an enemy?

Pakistan was just such an invented state and broke up. This just won't work. Either Gaza has to go back to Egypt on WB has to go back to Jordan or TWO mini-Palestinian states have to be created. (I'm leaving out Israel annexing either or both).

Let's propose a radicla solution. Give Gaza to Hamas and call it Hamasistan. They can fence off their frontier and be treated as an independent state. Then, since all the real negotiable issues reside with the West Bank, we can negotiate those and create Fatahistan. Israel can have what ever relations fit with the two.

Posted by: AlanC at October 10, 2007 4:27 PM

all those conferences for peace? Well, they are probably held in great cities, the hotels are splashily gorgeous, the restaurants marvellous, the conference centres festooned with every modern communication device... and every attendant is on a splendid expense account.

PLUS. Everyone involved looks concerned to the folks (taxpayers) back home.

What is not to like????

Posted by: heather at October 10, 2007 4:44 PM

Is there reason not be cynical?

Think of Lucy, Charley Brown and the football.

"I'm a changed person ... isn't this a face you can trust?"

"I give you my bonded word."

"You have to learn to be trusting..."

"The odds now are really in your favor!!"

"Peculiar thing about this document ... it was never notarized."

"Look at the innocence in my eyes."

"Again, Charlie Brown ... and again, and again and again."

Posted by: Richard Nieporent at October 10, 2007 5:39 PM

No, there is absolutely not one reason not to be cynical. It makes me sick to think what could happen as the Jewish state gives up more and more and gets less and less of what it bargains for. It's getting harder and harder to watch.

Posted by: Webutante at October 10, 2007 7:42 PM

Alan C -- Gaza would be an EXCLAVE of the main part of Palestine, should such a country come into being. There are a few throughout the world, including the new nation of East Timor, which includes an exclave called Oecussi-Ambeno that is separate from the rest of East Timor and completely surrounded by Indonesia.

West Berlin, of course, was another exclave during the cold war. Also, Alaska.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclave

The PA offer to accept Israeli annexation of the large settlement blocs should be a cause for hope. Given the overall demographic mix of the peoples west of the Jordan, a Palestinian state certainly deserves 2,400 sq. miles of territory. And why not swap current Israeli Arabs neighborhoods for the West Bank settlement blocs, thereby addressing the longer term Israeli concern of too many unassimilable, highly fertile non-Jewish citizens with voting rights? The current Israeli Arab hostility to Avigdor Lieberman's plan along these lines seems to be mainly a function of not wanting to be a part of the extreme poverty of the West Bank, which ought to improve significantly given a real peace accord and the international investment that would follow. In any case, the reality is that there is and will continue to be a Jewish ethnic state, and this means there must also be, at least in theory, a non-Jewish state. Whatever the preferences of the Israeli Arabs, they are secondary to the necessity of trying to create a viable non-Jewish state.

Posted by: markus at October 10, 2007 8:43 PM

What's leaving me astonished is Israel's sudden willingness to give in on some critical existential issues. It's really stunning and I can't think of why they would do it. It doesn't seem to serve any interest at all.

They're basically saying "every unacceptable wish you've ever had is on the table". And not for concessions, for delivery of concessions bought and paid for twice already.

To me the most galling is the sudden reported willingness to sell Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Put aside the religious and historical questions for a moment. What, precisely, does Olmert expect to get out of this? Peace? The palestinians have agreed to peace in exchange for other things numerous times. After a brief respite, they always resume the terror attacks with new demands. Sometimes through a rival faction to the one you agreed with, sometimes directly.

The next argument goes like this: "We're signing a treaty with them on very generous terms so that when they repudiate it the world community will realize that they're negotiating in bad faith and will cease supporting them." It's a good idea, but again it's been done before. Arafat walked from Clinton/Barak's deal and while he suffered afterwards, the world community never really stopped supporting him. Ditto for the too-numerous and well-substantiated major violations of peace treaties.

Is this an attempt to triangulate against the religious parties and Likud? Honestly, on a deal like that, they COULD be the odd men out, but if such a deal goes through and fails there would be blood in the streets and the peaceniks would never be trusted again.

Some kind of triangulation against Hamas by Fatah? It would seem to *reward* the votes for Hamas, and I think traction in negotiations with Israel helps Hamas because it shows that you can openly and actively work to repudiate treaties and destroy Israel and still get concessions, aid and more treaties.

So I honestly can't think of what Olmert stands to gain, or things Israel stands go gain, out of this. Some may be more indirect than others, but all the viable palestinian factions ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Even if you could find someone, somewhere who would be satisfied with peaceful coexistence, he would be immediately repudiated by the other Palestinians. Who would be sure to hang on to any gains that their leader had made.

Posted by: Wellspring at October 11, 2007 6:43 AM

Oh God, here we go again. When will this nonsense cease? There is zero hope of peace in the Middle East until the hard core militants are either killed or imprisioned. If nothing else, they intimidate the moderates. The thugs have no hesitation whatsover to murder one's family. Is that so hard to understand?

Posted by: David Thomson at October 11, 2007 7:11 AM

Markus,

I know that their are a few enclaves, but, they don't generally survive for long. Alaska doesn't count because there is access that doesn't require crossing someone elses territory, it's called the ocean and Hawaii is the same. ;^)

Enclaves don't work in a hostile environment and barely in a peaceful one.

Posted by: AlanC at October 11, 2007 10:48 AM

Email This Post