Israeli-Palestinian Peace: An Impossible Dream?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Commenting on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s latest Middle East trip and effort to revitalize the Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, the New York Times criticizes Rice for the lack of any progress on that count. According to the editorial, “despite 14 trips to the region in the past 15 months—and the November peace conference in Annapolis—Ms. Rice has frighteningly little to show for her presence.” True. But one wonders whether a different position by the Bush administration would have moved the parties closer towards peace. For the Times, the premise of compromise that the administration must push for is President Clinton’s proposal from 2000: “a secure Israel and an economically viable Palestinian state, divided by roughly the June 1967 borders, and including reasonable compromises over
Jerusalem.”

The fact is that President Clinton’s proposals did not move the parties closer to peace at a time, when the Palestinian Authority was far stronger and Hamas far weaker than today. Then, there were two parties involved in the peace process. Today, President Mahmoud Abbas speaks only for part of the Palestinians and the Hamas leadership for a growing number of the people in Gaza and the West Bank. In part, this shift was a result of Hamas’s strong showing in elections that the Bush administration pushed for.
As a recent public opinion survey, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, revealed, 3 of 4 Palestinians said that negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas should be terminated because they were without benefit. Moreover, the Islamist fundamentalist Hamas organization—already in firm control in Gaza—is gaining support in the West Bank at the expense of Mr. Abbas’s secular Fatah base. Moreover, the poll “showed greater support for violence than any other he had conducted over the past 15 years in the Palestinian areas. Never before, he [the pollster] said, had a majority favored an end to negotiations or the shooting of rockets at Israel.”

The New York Times editorial board is among those who suggest that “the United States and Israel should start exploring the possibilities of talking directly with Hamas, though not in a way that excludes the far more statesmanlike Mr. Abbas.” Talking to terrorist organizations may make sense if there is any doubt about their grievances and objectives. There is no doubt that the Palestinian people have well known, very real and justified grievances and demands that cannot and should not be swept under the carpet. But as far as Hamas is concerned, its leaders and supporters have left no doubt that their ultimate goal is not a two-state solution but rather the end of Israel. 

The other day, New York Times correspondent Steven Erlanger reported on the massive propaganda of hate and violence against Israel in Gaza since Hamas took over the region. The particular target of this propaganda are children and youth. Erlanger wrote, “Hamas’s grip on Gaza matters, but what may matter more in the long run is its control over propaganda and education there, breeding longer-term problems for Israel, and for peace. No matter what Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agree upon, there is concern here that the attitudes being instilled will make a sustainable peace extremely difficult.”

What sense would it make, then, to enter into direct negotiations with Hamas? Chances are that this would increase the standing of Hamas, further erode support for Abbas among Palestinians, and not move ahead on the desperately needed but, unfortunately, illusionary road to peace. 

Unless a large number of moderates among the Palestinian religious and secular leaders take charge of the public discourse and promote a two state solution and permanent peace, there is little hope that the Middle East problem will be solved. Regardless of who is Secretary of State or, as a matter of fact, President of the United States. 

Comments

[lord rev dyjuan d barnes YAHWEH]

YAHWEH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NOW WHAT WE MUST REALIZE IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHOM CLAIM TO BE JEWS ARE IMPOSTERS THEY ARE NOT THE TRUE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL OR YAHWEH THEY ARE NOT THE CHIDREN OF ABRAHAM SO THERE WILL NEVER BE PEACE OVER THERE IN THE MIDDLE EAST WE MUST TURN TO YAHWEH IN REPENTENCE AND YAHWEH WILL WORK THIS MATTER OUT

[Mary O'Bryan]

It will be the end of any peace accord, if Obama gets elected and that is a big "IF". I guess the MSNBC jerks and other MSM who slobber all over Obama are thinking they are suceeding by now. Just let me say you media hypocrits, Hillary Clinton has more grit and promise for America, in her little finger, than all the nasty _____ insisting on her withdrawal from the campaign combined. God help "US" and Israel if Obama does get the nomination. I am truly fearful for our country, for the first time in my adult life, because of the shape we are in at this time in America. The task is far too great for a rookie senator to successfully address all the tough challenges we face. He, my fellow Americans, is not up to the task. Hillary on the other hand is the only candidate left in the Presidential campaign who is up to this daunting challenge. I suggest we all step back and look at where we are in this country and proceed onward with this nominating process. I am ashamed of women who have deserted our own gender over their own jealousy or even worse reasons. Remember, Hillary will have her day with the MSM and paybacks are hell.

[Brigitte]

Tony:
It is always good to engage in an exchange of ideas--especially, when one differs.

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, sure, you find extremists and hate speech on the other side as well. But you will not find on Israeli TV and radio programs like the ones aired by Hamas's Al Aqsa Television and Voice of Al Aqsa. Al Aqsa TV's children's programs in particular, indoctrinate a whole generation of boys and girls to hate and embrace the idea of becoming future martyrs. You can see some shocking clips from such shows on YouTube.

Nothing would be more desirable than a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Governments may well want to talk directly to terrorists, insurgents, guerrillas, or whatever you want to call these non-state actors, if they have negotiable goals. The British government talked to the IRA, the Spanish authorities to ETA, etc. But in my judgment, it doesn't make much sense to sit down with those who insist on non-negotiable objectives as Hamas and similar organizations do.

[Tony]

""The other day, New York Times correspondent Steven Erlanger reported on the massive propaganda of hate and violence against Israel in Gaza since Hamas took over the region.""
Hhas there been any propaganda of hate going the other way?

Dear Brigitte,
I hope I do not offend anyone with this post, you most of all, but someday I would like to read an objective history of the crisis, without media bias. I doubt that I will live long enough. And I am not implying that your blog is the media I refer to- far from it.
But radical means are usually undertaken when moderate voices go unheard.(Alan Dershowitz, "Why Terrorism Works.") I suspect that a couple of generations of Palis are ready for a change in the status quo, and since nothing else has worked, then Hamas is being given a go. Maybe it is too late for objectivity.