Israel Matzav: Stop the 'peace process,' I want to get off

Stop the 'peace process,' I want to get off

Writing in the New York Times, Tom Friedman (Tom Friedman!) urges the Obama administration to dust off an old line from the Bush 41 administration, fold up its tent and go home.

This peace process movie is not going to end differently just because we keep playing the same reel. It is time for a radically new approach. And I mean radical. I mean something no U.S. administration has ever dared to do: Take down our “Peace-Processing-Is-Us” sign and just go home.

Right now we want it more than the parties. They all have other priorities today. And by constantly injecting ourselves we’ve become their Novocain. We relieve all the political pain from the Arab and Israeli decision-makers by creating the impression in the minds of their publics that something serious is happening. “Look, the U.S. secretary of state is here. Look, she’s standing by my side. Look, I’m doing something important! Take our picture. Put it on the news. We’re on the verge of something really big and I am indispensable to it.” This enables the respective leaders to continue with their real priorities — which are all about holding power or pursuing ideological obsessions — while pretending to advance peace, without paying any political price.

Let’s just get out of the picture. Let all these leaders stand in front of their own people and tell them the truth: “My fellow citizens: Nothing is happening; nothing is going to happen. It’s just you and me and the problem we own.”

Indeed, it’s time for us to dust off James Baker’s line: “When you’re serious, give us a call: 202-456-1414. Ask for Barack. Otherwise, stay out of our lives. We have our own country to fix.”

Of course, when Baker uttered that line, it was directed only at one side (Israel), whereas Friedman would direct it at both sides.

Meryl Yourish thinks Friedman is advocating going back to the Bush 43 policy of ignoring the problem until the parties are ready to deal with it, and perhaps she's correct.

That sounds to me like an endorsement of George W. Bush’s refusal to repeat the Clinton administration’s mistakes. And coming from the guy who threw the Saudi peace plan on the world and pushed it for years as the only real move forward in negotiations—well, let’s just say I’m having a major schadenfreude moment.

I don't agree with Meryl's conclusion that Israel would give up all of Judea and Samaria if only the 'Palestinians' would agree to make peace. At this point, very few of us trust the 'Palestinians' intentions. But since the 'Palestinians' aren't willing to live with a State of Israel of any size, that argument is moot.

I'd be happy to see the Obama administration lower the focus on Israel and let both of our countries go back to building our economies. We do that pretty well together. Maybe Baker (pictured) was almost onto something for once.

Israel Matzav: Stop the 'peace process,' I want to get off

Israel Matzav: The end of the 'peace process'?

The end of the 'peace process'?

'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen told US Secretary of State Clinton and US Middle East envoy George Mitchell in Abu Dhabi on Saturday that the 'Palestinians' will not resume 'negotiations' with Israel unless Israel ceases all construction in 'east Jerusalem.' Clinton and Mitchell told Abu Mazen that no better offers from Israel are forthcoming.

Speaking at a press conference in Abu Dhabi after meeting United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is due to arrive here later Saturday evening and to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Abbas said that in its actions, Israel was "pouring oil into the bonfire [of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict], crossing red lines and preparing the ground for further acts of violence."

Abbas was presented by Clinton and by US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell with understandings reached between the US and Israel earlier. According to the Israeli offer, no more construction will be undertaken in the settlements apart from the completion of 3,000 housing units which are already in advanced stages of completion. Also, Jerusalem would not include east Jerusalem in the deal.

In the press conference, Abbas emphasized the issue of Jerusalem, saying the main issue in his talks with Clinton was the Jewish capital. "Jerusalem is in danger, and Arabs and Muslims must be aware of it," Abbas said. "Peace begins in Jerusalem, and without Jerusalem there will be no peace with the Israeli side," he added.

The Netanyahu administration, like previous governments, refuses to negotiate over Jerusalem and rejects the labeling of Jewish neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city as settlements.

Saeb Erekat, the top PA negotiator who was present in the Abbas-Clinton meeting, was quoted by Israel Radio as saying that "Clinton and Mitchell have clarified that at this point they cannot get more [generous offers] from Israel."

In case any of you missed it, this offer is more generous than the previous one: This offer would freeze Israeli building in Judea and Samaria for 'natural growth.' That freeze would be very unpopular in Israel and I question whether Netanyahu could even get his cabinet to approve it.

No matter. The 'Palestinians' have once again not missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I'm sure Obama and Clinton are real happy now that they raised the issue of a total 'settlement freeze' in the first place.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: The end of the 'peace process'?