Read this snippet from Matt Yglesias:
I’m not quite sure I grasp what’s supposed to be going on here. Most notably peace has not, in fact, broken out between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The hopeful signs we’re seeing lately are just signs that we may see a return to peace talks. But of course the failure to have such talks is precisely what critics of the Bush Israel policy have been criticizing Bush for. The proximate cause of all this is that with Arafat dead, the Bush/Sharon policy of not negotiating with Arafat is non-operative. But if Bush and Sharon had never adopted that policy, we could have had hopeful talks years ago. Maybe those talks would have come to nothing, but maybe (indeed, I would say “probably”) they will still come to nothing now.
It appears that to Matt, what is really important are peace talks- not the outcome of any such talks, but the peace talks themselves.
The reason there have been no peace talks in ther past several years is because Sharon and Bush realized, from the 30 years of experience Arafat has provided them, that Arafat was a bad actor and would never follow through with any peace talks. It really isn’t that hard to grasp- ask Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, or anyone else on the planet.
Continuing to harangue Bush because there were no Israeli/Palestinian peace talks recently shows me what is really important to some critics- peace talks, and not real peace.
Mark
What is the point of having talks now anyway – before the Palestinian elections. Pretty hard to have talks without a leader, isn’t it?
Sharkman
Besides the fact that Arafat’s corpse has only recently been put onto the fast elevator to Hell. Bush and Sharon were supposed to have INSTANTENEOUSLY SOLVE the problem that it took Arafat 30 years to create, upon notification that he was, in fact, dead? Jeez, Matt Y, it took TWO FRIGGEN WEEKS before anyone would even confirm that he WAS dead. Patience, people, patience.
Kimmitt
I think the idea is that in order for peace talks to have any sort of outcome, they have to exist.
That said, Clinton did, in fact, prove that Arafat was a bad actor. If the guy who brokered peace in Northern Ireland can’t get Arafat to agree to a deal, then the question is closed. It is also worthy of note, however, that the Israelis are not precisely offering a Marshall Plan to the Palestinians.
Mikey
The ball is now in the Palestinian’s court. They have to make the first move. Why do I say that? Because the Israelis and Americans have stated what the conditions are before they will negotiate. Why do the Palestinians have to meet the Israeli and American conditions first? They rejected Barak’s offer and took up the gun. It is now their turn to come up with an offer that does not involve bullets and bombs. If they can.
I’m not very sanguine about that happening soon. The Palestinian groups will continue attacking Israel and Israel will continue to push them into an ever-more constrained cormer. It’s like a Greek tragedy, except the blood is real and the protagonists, the Palestinians, out of pride or something can’t bring themselves to take the one action that will end the tragedy. They won’t drop the gun, they won’t acknowledge the Israelis have a right to exist.
Kimmitt
They won’t drop the gun, they won’t acknowledge the Israelis have a right to exist.
My understanding is that pretty much everyone except for Hamas and Hizbollah have acknowledged Israel’s right to exist, including the Fatah Party. Is this incorrect?
Bloggerhead
I think MY’s basically responding to the fresh wave of wingnut triumphalism which credits the administration’s lack of action hitherto on the roadmap as some sort of profound insight–instead of its seeming intransigence or paralysis–and as the ingenious step towards the imminent peaceful resolution to the I/P problem. (See Brooks, David.)
You know, the Bush-Knows-Best schtick, and at least this attempt has the virtue of upcoming elections to pin its tail to…for now, at least, and that’s all a wave of triumphalism requires.
S.W. Anderson
If Yglesias’ point is that it’s much too soon and there’s much too little actual progress for anyone to get all fat and happy about peace prospects, and I think that is what he’s saying, he’s hardly out of line.
That said, John’s point about Arafat being the functional equivalent of a bowel obstruction is right on target.
q
It’s hard to have “peace talks” when one side doesn’t want peace, and prefers your destruction.
This issue, more than any other, exposes the religion of liberalism.
q
It’s hard to have “peace talks” when one side doesn’t want peace, and prefers your destruction.
This issue, more than any other, exposes the religion of liberalism.
FUCK YOUR WAITING PERIOD! ASSHOLE!
Aaron
Would anyone here negotiate with someone who could not actually deliver what they are negotiating about?
Until the Palestinian Authority controls the means of violence and can really offer “peace” who wants to talk to them.
Israel could sign a peace deal, but Hamas would merrily keep bombing Israel and the PA would/could do nothing?
Silly.
Kimmitt
Israel could sign a peace deal, but Hamas would merrily keep bombing Israel and the PA would/could do nothing?
I think the theory is that a PA which delivered a viable, independent Palestine would gain in legitimacy to the point where they might be able to deliver some or all of Hamas as well.
Aaron
Why should Israel trust the PA to do this in the future when they couldn’t do it in the past?
I think the culture of violence and the amount of armed groups means the Palestinians will never be able to control their own.