By Ira Sharkansky
JERUSALEM–Thomas Friedman has written one of his better articles. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
As a retired professor still inclined to give grades to everything I hear or read, I’d say about 92, or A-.
The major theme is quite good. Friedman recognizes that there is no gas left in the peace process. It is like going to an old play, where the actors are no longer inspiring while reciting their well worn lines.
As a result, the Obama administration should back off, tell the parties to call the White House when they are interested, and spend its energies fixing the many problems of the United States.
Why only an A-?
Friedman cannot refrain from giving equal responsibility to Israeli and Palestinian participants, with a nod toward the negative contributions of other Arabs, and no fault whatsoever to the American administration or decent governments elsewhere.
I would give more credit to Israelis for making sincere efforts to negotiate. Camp David and Taba in 2000 was as close as it has gotten. Israel’s prime minister publicly offered, with the participation of Bill Clinton, most of the West Bank, a share of Jerusalem, and some territorial swaps. Yassir Arafat not only said No, but proceeded to plan and/or endorse the intifada that produced casualties and distrust among Israelis who had been willing to make a deal. The distrust deepened with the Palestinian response to the withdrawal of Jewish settlements from Gaza.
Israeli distrust of others has gotten worse with the Obama’s administration insistence on a settlement freeze, including my neighborhood and others in East Jerusalem, and all those decent governments mumbling that there may be something worth considering in the Goldstone Report.
The greatest mistake of the Obama administration was to make such a prominent effort to renew the process when the split between the West Bank and Gaza has been so profound as to render a deal highly unlikely. Raising expectations in such an adverse environment has contributed to the wonderment of the Israeli public, and helps to explain why polls show the vast majority of Israeli Jews feeling that Obama is against them. A politician who angers the constituency that is most important for implementing a goal has not only failed in his proclaimed task, but he may have made it more difficult for anyone else to try.
What we have now is an old and tired Palestinian leader playing his last card: Do something or I’ll resign.
There are Israeli oppositionists maneuvering for media coverage by offering their own packages, hardly different from what has been tried before, and being rejected within minutes by Palestinians.
A recent front page headline in Ha’aretz claimed that the White House was consulting with the Palestinians, with the possibility that Washington would recognize an independent Palestine with the borders of 1967. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126594.html
The fantasy of the Israeli left? the American left? or only the Palestinians?
No course in public administration is complete without warning that the Devil is in the Details. What would happen to the half million of us Jews living to the east of the 1967 boundaries? Would we allow ourselves no more than modest expressions of disappointment, pack our curtains and other belongings, and move in with friends and relatives?
Don’t count on it.
*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University. Email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il
JERUSALEM–Thomas Friedman has written one of his better articles. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion