"Stop talking about peace," he says. "Banish the word. Start talking about détente. That’s what Lieberman wants; that’s what Hamas says it wants; that’s the end point of Netanyahu’s evasions."
As for the dream of peace? "Thats over," he argues. "The courageous have departed the Middle East. A peace of the brave must yield to a truce of the mediocre — at best."
I agree with his analysis on where things stand. I am confused by his conclusion.
A truce with Hamas in Gaza, okay. Hamas would free the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, agree to stop firing rockets at Israeli civilians, and in exchange, Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, which has been in force since Hamas took control in June 2007.
But a truce with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank? Now I am confused. The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, abandoned violence a long time ago, beefed up security in the West Bank, and massively increased the civilian police force. Abbas respected his side of the bargain; he got nothing in return. Abbas was desperate to get the Israelis to stop building settlements so he could negotiate a two-state solution. He failed, and in the process lost the support of his people.
So what exactly would a truce mean for Palestinians living in the West Bank? The status quo? Would Israeli settlements continue to grow and expand in Palestinian territory? Would the separation barrier continue to cut Palestinians off from their farmland, separate villages and siphon off roads?
I agree that for now a truce might be the only thing conceivable, but where is the incentive for Israel to stop the policies that are violating Palestinian rights in the West Bank? What more can the Palestinian Authority offer Israel in exchange?
44 days to go...
No comments:
Post a Comment