|View From a Height
Commentary from the Mile High City
Monday, November 03, 2003
Our Greatest Ex-President
Jimmy Carter's at it again. In his opinion piece for the USA Today, Carter portrays Geneva as providing the framework for an ultimate solution to the Israel-Palestinian war. He portrays it as Oslo was portrayed, and it certainly does look a lot like Oslo. The factual and logical gymnastics involved in making it look viable are worthy of Olga Korbet.
Yes, the Israelis are so influential they were destroyed in the last elections, some even leaving Labor for parties further to the left. The Palestinians are so influential none of them is currently in government. The would matter even if the government were actually elected.
Yes. "Colonizing." True technically. Playing to the worst symbolism of Israel as a colonial power. Even Sharon has said that there should be a Palestinian state, and that some settlements will have to go. Not the one large, missing issue here: the state of war that exists between the two, with the unsettling tendency of Palestinians to blow themselves, busses, children, workshippers, and restaurant-goers to bits with some regularity, unless they are stopped. Here he ignores the issue. See what happens later on.
Moral equivalence between blowing up children, and blowing up the houses of those who would blow up children. The Palestinians term "wall" for the fence is adopted, as well as the assumption of "Palestinian" land. No mention of where the offending settlements lie, and no mention of why the fence is being built.
Naturally, allowing Israel to defend itself only hurts those who want peace. And there is, too, considerably doubt about that assertion. Need we go through the history here, that Osama only named Israel as a problem when he saw it might get him support? That it's thoroughly unrealistic to expect the US to impose a settlement where none is wanted by one side? No, to the extent that other Arabs really care about the Palestinians, they might consider making them citizens, stop keeping them in camps, and funding suicide bombings.
Israelis and Palestinians, many of whom played key roles in previous failed negotiations...Perhaps the reason they're working without government support is that all of them have no support within the government. Again, note that one of those governments is actually elected by its citizens.
Yes. Half the Israeli settlers may remain in the West Bank, subject to discriminatory laws, physcial harassment, and the constant threat of death from a hostile population not only unrestrained, but encouraged, by its government. The highly-developed land is assumed to be Palestinian, so it's assumed to have been unfairly taken, or that anything onthe other side of the 1967 Green Line is by default Palestinian land. And I'm sure that that unrestricted access by specific routes wil be just as secure as Israel's access to Mount Scopus and the Hebrew University was before 1967. Or, for that matter, just as secure as access to the Wall was before 1967, also guaranteed by cease-fire.
Right. So the Palestinians can deliberately keep some small issue unresolved, like, say the Sheeba Farms. The issue will be small, but will be cited as the reason for continuing Palestinian murder, and certainly no impediment to implementing all the agreed-upon issues. Of course, the other Arab states will use that as a pretext for recognizing Israel. And what to do about the Golan? Surely Syria won't recognize Israel until that's settled.
Now, murder, while acknowledged, is simply wished away. The whole power dynamic within the PA is reduced to, "Arafat can't control Hamas." As though he wants to. As though giving Hamas a larger base to operate will make Israelis safer. As though "violent acts on either side" really exist. As though there is a "peace process."
As though Carter actually had something newor constructive to say.