Meanwhile, the diplomats keep searching for the magic formula.
nytimes.com
America Tries, Again, to End the Endless Conflict
By SERGE SCHMEMANN
...
"An agreement in the past has seemed so imperative, so close, that some veterans of the process have voiced the wish that a solution could simply be imposed. The two sides had gone as far as they could go by themselves, and the end result was known and inevitable. So why not, some on both sides of the negotiatons have wistfully asked, just present both sides with the blueprint of a solution? "
_____________________________________________________
Isn't this a lovely formulation? Of course, since the basic formulation of the deal is still 'land for peace', and nobody on the globe can remain ignorant of the value of the promises that Arafat will give, i.e. they will be just as worthless as all the promises he has given in the past, what this formulation really amounts to is 'land for nothing'.
And of course the Israelis must deal with Arafat. Why? Because they're no one else. You might object that Arafat is old, his control is shaky, his administration is corrupt, he has conspicuously failed to bring law and order to those territories he controls, and the only sure thing you can say about the succession to Arafat is that it won't be orderly. Not to mention the fact that he's running an active terrorist campaign.
So why should the Israelis deal under these circumstances? Because the solution is 'known'. And it's always easier for diplomats to press an existing government for concessions than to try to fix the real problem -- the completely dysfunctional nature of the Palestinian leadership.
Thank goodness that the Bush administration seems to be keeping the State Department on a limited leash. |
