Just as former U.S.
President Bill Clinton exposed the true face of Yasser Arafat at Camp
David, we must thank Secretary of State John Kerry for exposing
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' rejectionist colors. Even
though the American spokespersons have since gone back to waxing about
"the negative steps taken by both sides," their initial reaction to the
diplomatic crisis left no doubt that they too thought the crux of the
responsibility fell on the Palestinians.
In the meantime Kerry
has declared "reality check time," or in other words that the inventory
of facts and varying positions must be accounted for, and thankfully so,
because any real examination will show that the Palestinians
booby-trapped the process from the start and never, not for a moment,
abandoned their original plan to ultimately turn to the United Nations.
When the late Israel
Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Shomron was asked his opinion of the
Palestinian leadership, he answered simply that it comprised "a bunch of
terrorists." Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to shed the impression
that despite Abbas' tactical and utilitarian conclusion that the weapon
of terrorism is not conducive to the Palestinian cause, it seems hard
for him and his cohort to discard the terrorist mentality, as clearly
evidenced by their latest moves.
Prior to the first
stage of the negotiations the Palestinians demanded, and received, the
release of terrorists, but toward the end of the talks they injected
Marwan Barghouti, Ahmad Saadat and Israeli Arab terrorists into the
equation, all without having any intention of forgoing the planned U.N.
gambit.
The current crisis is
not a surprise. While Kerry's honest intentions need not be questioned,
perhaps he and his advisers should have been more cognizant, based on
the facts from the past, of the prearranged Palestinian script. We can
also wonder what the basis was for their belief they would succeed, this
time around, to overcome the fundamental Palestinian negativism toward
any process or arrangement obligating them to concessions and
compromises on the conflict's core issues.
By the way, and with
all due remorse and anger that Jonathan Pollard is still languishing in
prison, it is perhaps best that the problematic deal to secure his
release fell through. We must still continue pressing for his release
based on the basic principles of elementary humane justice, but not in
exchange for releasing murderers and eroding the rule of law in Israel.
We should assume that
the Americans, despite the reports, will not withdraw from the
Israeli-Palestinian issue. It is possible they will be less active in
the intermediate future, but after a short while it is safe to envision
that regional and domestic political interests, including the
administration's prestige, will bring them back with renewed vigor.
There are those who believe that Washington must propose its own peace
formulas, but considering past experience it is doubtful they will seek
to enter a minefield without any assurances of escaping unscathed.
A possible alternate route could
have been a combined regional arrangement to also address the
Palestinian issue, but the distrust accrued by Washington's traditional
regional allies toward it diminishes the chances of such a scenario. It
is possible, of course, that Washington, too, will now come to the
conclusion that the time is not ripe for a final status agreement
solving all the problems and divisions, therefore making it preferable
to push for intermediate or partial arrangements (which Israel, too,
will not necessarily reject outright). While it is indeed impossible to
force the Palestinians, or at least their leaders, to desire peace, but
is possible, maybe, to make them understand that time is not on their
side.
No comments:
Post a Comment