|
Movies Books Music Food Tv Shows Technology Politics Video Games Parenting Fashion Green Living more >

Lunch » Tags » President Obama » Reviews » Barack Obama and Palestine: Barack Obama makes his push for Palestine | The Economist » User review

Will it be enough?

  • Aug 24, 2010
  • by
Rating:
+4
Barack Obama's success in at last persuading Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, to start direct talks with Israel's prime minister, "Bibi" Netanyahu. There is to be a grand opening in Washington on September 1st, attended by Messrs Abbas and Netanyahu, with Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah acting as chaperones. Talks between Israel and the Palestinians will then ensue, which the administration expects to reach completion, ie, agreement on a final peace settlement, within a year.

It is easy to be cynical about the scope of this supposed breakthrough. By getting the two sides back into direct talks Mr Obama has merely returned to where George Bush was after his Annapolis summit of November 2007. Big deal: the direct talks initiated then got nowhere, even though Israel's prime minister at the time, Ehud Olmert, was far readier for territorial compromise than is Mr Netanyahu. Even if, by some miracle, the two men came close to agreement, Hamas is still absent from the table. This means that half of the Palestinian movement would not be party to any deal and will try hard to sabotage one. So indeed will those Israelis in Bibi's governing coalition who for reasons of ideology, security or both vehemently oppose the creation of a Palestinian state. It is better for the parties to be talking than not talking, but a betting man would not favour the chances of a breakthrough to peace.

That said, it would be a mistake to put the chances of success entirely at nil. When Mr Netanyahu and Mr Abbas hit the inevitable impasse, the Americans, who intend to be actively involved in the process through the person of George Mitchell, will doubtless table a bridging proposal. And this is the point at which the script could begin to depart from the precedent Mr Bush set at Annapolis.

Mr Bush left his push in Palestine to the end of his presidency, and with the Iraq war to fight never saw the peace process as much more than a distraction or palliative. Mr Obama, on the other hand, started early, and seems determined to persevere despite the pushback he ran into from Israel's friends in Congress after his brutal confrontation with Mr Netanyahu over settlements in the territories. America's president, in short, shows every sign of being a true believer in the necessity of solving this conflict, not least in order to redeem the promises he gave the Muslim world in his famous Cairo speech. A year from now, when the negotiation "deadline" expires, he may be approaching the final year of his presidency—but for all the parties in the region know he might still have another four-year term ahead of him. That will make it more expensive for the Israelis or Palestinians to resist whatever bridging ideas America brings to the table.

Another point: America's relations with Israel are more than ever focused on the pressing question of Iran and its purported nuclear-weapons programme. The administration has been saying lately that even if the Iranians went hell-for-leather for a bomb right now, it would take them at least a year to build a single device. This suggests that if Mr Netanyahu takes the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran half as seriously as he claims he does, he cannot risk being indifferent, especially over the coming year, to the quality of his relations with the superpower. The administration would surely never express the linkage this crudely, but there is here the making of a grand bargain: greater Israeli flexibility towards the Palestinians in return for ever-closer co-operation against the threat from Iran. As I said, a betting man would not favour the chances of a rapid breakthrough after the Washington summit. The Hamas conundrum is a huge obstacle.  But this meeting may turn out to be much more than a reprise of the Annapolis failure.

_______________________________________________________________________
This article discusses the upcoming meeting President Obama has secured with the President of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, and Israel's Prime Minister, "Bibi" Netanyahu. The meeting is being held in September in Washington, DC and will hopefully end with a final peace settlement between the two disputing parties. There is discussion of both optimisim and skepticism. This is not the first time these leaders have meet, and there is also the argument that Hamas (which makes up half of the Palestinan movement) is not represented therefore making an agreement reached, incomplete. 

However, I also believe even if these leaders were to reach an agreement the end would be in the far future. The people of both these countries hold resentment and at time animosity towards each other. They would be no means forget those feelings and events of the past years just because their leaders agreed to co-exist. If a final peace settlment is reached it should most defintiely included programs to help bridge the gaps that exist between the citizens of both countries.

What did you think of this review?

Helpful
6
Thought-Provoking
6
Fun to Read
6
Well-Organized
6
Post a Comment
About the reviewer
Laura ()
Ranked #310
My name is Laura, I am currently living in D.C. and attend American University. I am originally from Staten Island, NY. I am majoring in International Relations with a focus in Peace and Conflict Resolution. … more
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

You
Laur32
Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
First to Review
© 2014 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists