Europe’s impatience

on 2 Comments

One of the main themes of recent days is that the failure of the peace process has now shifted the European actors to take a larger role. Ilene Cohen points out this headline in Haaretz:

Jerusalem scrambles as European states move to upgrade ties with Palestinians

Reports indicate Palestinians urging about a dozen EU states to upgrade the PA’s diplomatic status;

Israel orders envoys abroad to take ‘urgent’ action against Palestinian efforts at UN.

and she adds:

They’re now fighting their war for Greater Israel on multiple fronts—in addition to the literal war against the Palestinian people. Eric Cantor, Howard Berman, Chuck Schumer, and the other friends of Israeli colonialism in the US Congress won’t be able to save them.

As for the administration:

According to information obtained by the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, senior American officials have approached Arab diplomats both in Washington, D.C. and UN headquarters in New York with the message that the measure is “unwise and unhelpful” and the administration therefore wants the Arabs to abandon it.

How many times did the US respond to the most egregious, aggressive, and illegal behavior on the part of Israel will the pathetic words, “It [the latest war, the latest killings, the latest settlement expansion] is ‘not helpful.'” There’s something of a “just desserts” quality to the US using similar vapid language in pressing the Arabs to help poor little Israel. What goes around . . .

2 Responses

  1. Richard Witty
    December 21, 2010, 10:03 pm

    The current Palestinian (PA) strategy is working!!!

    That is to develop the institutions of the Palestinian nation in fact, undeniable and functional.

    And, without confrontation, violence, expression of hatred. Just steadfastly moving forward.

    Right now, Netanyahu is losing his “solid ground”. There has been very little terror coming from the West Bank, so there is no rationale possible for failing to undertake the simple sequence of ceasing settlement construction as an indication of intention to make a real peace, followed by negotiation of borders (close to agreement per Fayyad and Abbas at last week’s dinner with Israeli MK’s), then negotiation of form of sovereignty over Jerusalem and remedy to Palestinian refugee condition.

    It puts Netanyahu in the position of necessity to cooperate towards a coordinate peace, rather than confront uniliteral recognition of Palestine with likely conflict resulting.

    Enough Zionism is enough. None would be too little and suppressive to the majority of Jewish Israelis. Expansionistic Zionism is undeniably suppressive.

  2. Richard Witty
    December 21, 2010, 10:55 pm

    The difference in changing attitudes towards Palestinians, includes Gaza and Lebanon (the media, the pictures, the video).

    The most important difference is a component of the empowerment of Palestinian society to choose NOT to employ terror as a means.

    Those that came of political age in the late 90’s and early 00’s, came of age during periods of frequent Palestinian terror actions on civilians by all factions: Hamas, PFLP, Al Aqsa Martyrs (then attributed as a militia of Fatah).

    Hamas following the cease-fire unilaterally reduced terror actions (including shelling Sderot civilians in that definition). Al Aqsa Martyrs officially and conspicuously surrendered their weapons to the Palestinian police force, operating under central command.

    Those that came of political age after the second intifada (including Phil by his descriptions of his engagement in the issue), came of age in which Israel acted based on the second intifada, but during a time when Palestinian factions for the most part were not actively engaged in terror (with the exception of shelling from Gaza).

    Those that came of age during the second intifada concluded that the relationship was fundamentally of conflict, mutually brutal (at least between the fanatics on each side).

    Those that are coming of age now, and objectively seeing what is going on on the ground currently, conclude mostly aggression, suppression, expansionism on the part of Israelis.

    I liken it to Vietnam consciousness awakening, though the US is far far less involved in Israel/Palestine, though it is more important to US policy for peace to emerge than any position on Vietnam was.

    Those 5 years older than Phil and I had very different mix of political opinions than my micro-generation. And those 5 years younger, also had a very different mix of associations. The current events were that formative.

Leave a Reply