Give White House Credit for Mideast Peace Efforts

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Skeptics have had a field day criticizing the direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians to be launched this week in Washington. To be sure, the obstacles to concluding an agreement are significant, the stakes are high and expectations are low.

But it is time to give the Obama Administration some credit. The White House is launching direct talks on Thursday with tools that previous administrations did not have or were unwilling to employ in past negotiation efforts. Despite the rampant skepticism, there are indeed reasons to be hopeful without being naïve.

The Obama Administration has come a long way to get to this point. The year-long tussle with Israel over West Bank settlement construction, a botched photo-op between the Israeli and Palestinian leadership in New York one year ago, and painstaking attempts to bring the parties to direct talks in recent months have eroded the optimism and expectations that came with the election of President Obama.

However, there are a number of essential ingredients that the Administration has got right as it launches direct talks. Martin Indyk mentioned four of them last week in the New York Times: 1) there is very little violence between the parties today; 2) settlement activity has been limited; 3) the majority on both sides support a two-state solution; and 4) the contours of an agreement are largely already known. Here are four more."

more

At least they're talking

<snip>

"After nearly three decades of failed peace negotiations, Israelis and Palestinians are understandably dubious about the prospects for success of the latest round of talks, this one between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, starting in Washington on Thursday. President Obama had to drag the leaders to the bargaining table after a 20-month hiatus in face-to-face contact between the two sides. And although Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II are jetting in for the launch, Hebrew and Arabic media already have dismissed the event as a "photo opportunity," a "mirage" and a meeting to give the "impression" of peacemaking.

Obama has set a deadline of one year to reach a comprehensive peace deal, but Middle East-watchers are asking if the talks will last even one month in light of the Sept. 26 expiration of Israel's moratorium on settlement construction, which Netanyahu has said he will not extend. Abbas has said he'll withdraw from negotiations if settlement expansion resumes. Abbas' rivals in the Islamic movement Hamas, of course, have branded the talks "illegitimate"; they're not even invited to the table. Meanwhile, Netanyahu's right-wing coalition partner, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef of the religious Shas party, said Saturday that Abbas "and all these evil people should perish from this Earth." And Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman suggested that what was needed in lieu of a one-year deadline were "lower expectations."

That hardly seems possible.

No one has illusions that making peace in the Middle East will be easy. Obama is investing significant political capital in getting the two sides together, but even he understands that talking is not necessarily the same as negotiating, let alone negotiating in good faith, and it's not yet clear which this will be.

Yet Obama is right to push. What alternative is there? Besides, talking might eventually lead to serious negotiations if the U.S. government is serious about reaching a deal and is willing to take political risks to get there. Both sides know the issues — the borders of a Palestinian state, the future of Jerusalem, what to do about settlements and what will become of the Palestinian refugees. The contours of a deal also are generally understood. Obama's challenge is to press both sides at the table to make the painful concessions necessary to reach an agreement that creates a sovereign Palestinian state while also guaranteeing Israeli security, and to bring the outliers on board. Whether this can realistically be done in a year is certainly debatable, but this much is clear: Talking is better than not talking, because in the Middle East, the alternative is fighting."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-peacetalks-20100831,0,6677888.story

[babylonsister]

1. I do, I do! It must start somewhere. Rec'd.

:thumbsup:

[geek tragedy]

2. A very well-intentioned mistake.

Eventually we will have to disengage on a more complete level.

[MadHound]

3. Give him credit for what? Doing the standard routine?

Virtually every president since Carter has tried their hand at Mideast peace, and have suffered various degrees of failure.

Starting peace talks in the Mideast really isn't that big a deal, actually bringing them to fruition, now that will be an accomplishment.

[MineralMan]

4. Do you have an inside view of how the President plans to

conduct these negotiations? I know I don't. I also know that negotiated agreements beat the crap out of wars. What objection can anyone have to another try at keeping the peace? I don't understand that. Maybe you can explain your plan for settling things in the Middle East.