Roger Cohen praises Fayyad, and pushes the Obama-Clinton efforts. The settlement deal with Netanyahu is "positive but a detail." (I'm not sure what he means by that.) His take on the Palestinian change of attitude reminds me a little of patronizing comments on lamentable Jewish attitudes of yesteryear. Of course then we got the IDF! But really I don't know that it is self-pitying and a cult of victimhood for people to talk about the denial of their basic rights for six decades:
“A bit of an epiphany,” in the words of one [Clinton] aide, came in March 2009 on the road to Ramallah. “We drove in a motorcade and you could see the settlements high up, and the brutality of it was so stark,” this aide said. “Everyone got quite silent and as we approached Ramallah there were these troops in berets. They were so professional, we thought at first they were Israel Defense Forces. But, no, they were Palestinians, this completely professional outfit, and it was clear this was something new.”
That “something” is fundamental: the transition from a self-pitying, self-dramatizing Palestinian psyche, with all the cloying accoutrements of victimhood, to a self-affirming culture of pragmatism and institution-building. The shift is incomplete. But it has won Clinton over. And it’s powerful enough to pose a whole new set of challenges to Israel: Palestine is serious now.
Another moment came in September 2010 when Clinton held a meeting with Fayyad that threw her schedule off because it ran so long. Fayyad is Mr. Self-Empowerment, the Palestinian who, at last, has put facts before “narrative,” growth before grumbling, roads before ranting, and security before everything. Clinton, I was told, has “strong views” on Fayyad. She said last week she had “great confidence” in him.
By the way, here is Brant Rosen on those details of the settlement freeze deal with Netanyahu. I begin with Rosen's quotation of Mark Lynch.
From Mideast analyst Mark Lynch (aka “Abu Aardvark”) writing in September 2009:
I was full agreement with Mr. Aardvark then as now. But now it’s one year later and it seems to be deja vu all over again.Indeed, “borders first” negotiations under current conditions — especially if Gaza is ignored and the Jersualem area either deferred or ratified — might well lead not to a two state solution but to what I’ve heard described as a “five statelet” outcome: Israel, Gaza, Ramallahstan, Nablusstan in the northern West Bank and Hebronstan in the southern West Bank. Does anyone really think that this would be the foundation for an end of conflict agreement?
While the US again pushes “Borders First,” other core issues are being completely ignored: Israel is still Judaizing East Jerusalem with abandon – and as for the crisis in Gaza, well, no one seems to consider the plight of that region issue even germane to the discussion any more.
Roger Cohen would most likely characterize Fayaad as a “moderate”, given that Fayaad is more than happy to brush basic Palestinian rights under the carpet.
In addition, the following sentence:
Clearly describes Zionist Jewish sentiments and views. If that description applies to a collective in this conflict, it is the American Jewish Zionist.
The bottom line is, Methinks Cohen is simply projecting.
jerusalem jerusalem jerusalem , the devil is in the details.
While the US again pushes “Borders First,” other core issues are being completely ignored: Israel is still Judaizing East Jerusalem
oh, they are not being completely ignored in this deal. they are front and center, just ignored by the press here AS IF we won’t friggin notice!
i am livid!
“Security, security, security” seems to be the preoccupation of Cohen’s Fayyadstan. Whose security? Why, Israel’s, of course.
For Roger Cohen, the oppressed has finally realized their place in the world and are doing their master’s bidding.
This paranoia about ‘security’ is really making me fume. The Palestinians have no right to security from Israel. However, security before everything, even Palestinian rights.
ISRAELI security before Palestinian rights.
Roger Cohen is right.
Fayyad’s accomplishments, mostly on schedule, are what will make a viable sovereign Palestine undeniable.
The summary of Gazastan, Hebronstan, Nablustan, Ramallahstan is a false one, a prediction, a gamble.
The 67 borders will be the ending basis of boundaries with likely two dozen square miles exchanged. The settlement blocs are peninsular, so there is no way that they will be ultimately secure themselves, nor would not make some travel through the West Bank inconvenient.
But, they will be like the inconvenience of having to drive 6 miles to get 1 mile as the crow flies in the mountains near my home, or the requirement to take a ferry (rather than walk on the water) between Woods Hole and Martha’s Vineyard.
The change only occurs if both parties are in earnest about desiring peace. There is much to support that assumption currently, and much to contradict it.
The single-state is remote in time, disadvantageous to Palestinians (the settlers are drooling in anticipation of unencumbered settlement options in the West Bank) and with a MUCH more circuituous political path to get there.
It’s really inspiring, Richard, to see how you are willing to support the overthrow of Palestinian voter choice in favor of the person the US government prefers. I wonder if you’d willingly carry this thinking over to Israel. I think we should put Amira Hass in power.
You are talking about Hamas?
With Hamas in power, the borders to Palestine are closed, and a state of war exists which serves noone. The management of its borders are its sovereign right. (Egypt closed the borders with Israel for three weeks when I was there in 1986, legally. It is a state’s prerogative.)
With Fatah in power, even temporarily, even empowered just to draft a proposal to present to the Palestinian people (Hamas authorized this in the few weeks that their government was in place), there is the prospect of sovereignty and the prospect of equal rights.
Your prescription would calcify Palestine, not liberate it.
Ah yes, troops in berets. I know them well. It was during the ’82 U.S. backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Upon arriving in Junei aboard a ferry boat from Larnica (Cyprus) – right there in front of me (even have a picture of them) – an Israeli tank and, alongside it, carloads of purple beret wearing soldiers of the Lebanese Forces (the fascist Phalange party’s military wing). So now in occupied Palestine, what do we have – beret-wearing Palestine Authority soldiers. Any doubt as to whose interests they’re serving?
It is utterly absurd to celebrate localized “institution building” within a larger political context in which Israel controls literally all the factors that determine whether those institutions can function or not. I am trying to think of a proper analogy to drive home my point and failing.
Institution building is necessary, in ANY context.
To fail to pursue it or to advocate that it not proceed is to boycott Palestine.