Soccer Dad

Rafah roundup

Usually I figure that if the editors of the New York Times and Washington Post are in agreement, then the sentiment expressed is probably wrong. The praise both papers gave Secretary Rice for forcing an agreement despite Israel's best interests is a case in point.

The Times in "Ms. Rice and Mideast Shuttle" writes:

Condoleezza Rice has now had her first taste of the Middle Eastern shuttle diplomacy that has drawn in almost every secretary of state since Henry Kissinger. She did a good job, staying up most of the night to extract a sorely needed agreement on moving people and goods in and out of Gaza.

And the Washington Post weighs in with "Ms. Rice's Dealmaking":

WITH A CRUCIAL push from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Israelis and Palestinians have at last taken a step toward converting Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip into a sustained movement toward peace. An agreement reached early Tuesday morning promises Palestinians in Gaza the access to the outside world necessary to convert their tiny, crowded territory from a detention camp into a statelet. It also gives Israel means to cope with the increased risk to its own security that such access necessarily creates. Needed months ago, the accord was stalled by eruptions of violence, domestic political complications on both sides, and the mutual distrust of Israeli and Palestinian leaders: Each side suspects that the other is not willing or able to follow President Bush's "road map" for a negotiated two-state settlement. By clinching the deal, Ms. Rice preserved the possibility that Mr. Bush's plan could still go forward.

Both newspapers take a nice even handed approach finessing the issue of what the Palestinians have done until now or why even the United States or Israel should trust them. The Times of course, points to the real problem here at the end of its editorial:

But there has been no evidence that the government has any plans for further movement. Until Ms. Rice plunged in, the Israelis and Palestinians had been deadlocked on the issue of Gaza's borders for 20 weeks. Ms. Rice may soon find out that the past week was just a rehearsal for harder work to come.

Further movement must come from Israel. What about the first movement from the Palestinians? Namely fighting terror organizations? Apparently that's not significant.

The second paragraph of the Washington Post's editorial demonstates a triumph of hope over experience:

The secretary of state also visibly broke with the Bush administration's self-defeating aversion to the kind of high-level, hands-on diplomacy that a half-dozen previous administrations had relied on to catalyze action in the Middle East. Stopping in the region for the fourth time this year, Ms. Rice extended her stay in Jerusalem by a day and then worked through the night on a laptop with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. The groundwork for the access agreement had been laid in endless talks brokered by international envoy James D. Wolfensohn. But as several officials observed, it's doubtful that the final deal would have been struck without intervention by Ms. Rice. Her success places her in the company of former secretaries James A. Baker III, George P. Shultz and Henry A. Kissinger -- not to mention former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- who understood that the gulf between Israelis and Palestinians could not be bridged without such personal involvement.

And how exactly did these men bridge the gulf between Israelis and Palestinians. They may have cajoled Israel into making (often unwise)concessions but they never got the Palestinians to change. Are the Post's editors really nostalgic for the consequences of the failed Camp David summit?

The Post continues:

The odds are still against Ms. Rice and Israeli and Palestinian supporters of a negotiated settlement. The Palestinians, and probably soon Israelis, face several months of campaigning for elections, and will be under pressure not to offer further compromises. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has ruled out progress on the road map until the Palestinian Authority disarms extremist groups. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said that such disarmament cannot be carried out by force.

So is Sharon's demand so outrageous that he should be forced to compromise? Is Abbas's refusal to disarm by force, if necessary, really a legitimate position. The "extremist groups" that Abbas refuses to disarm by force don't accept Israel's right to exist and his "plan" to integrate them into his security services effectively legitimizes their views and their actions. It insults our intelligence to suggest that Abbas has a leg to stand on. Yet the Post seems to say this is a point of negotiation. (Indeed, in the past the Post has explicitly advocated the integration of Hamas into the Palestinian Authority.) Of course this has been the problem with all negotiations until now. The PA - whether under Arafat or Abbas - takes an illegitimate position (i.e. one that would normally be considered at odds with what any reasonable person would call "peace") and waits for enough international pressure to build until Israel gives in. That approach has not brought peace in the twelve years since Oslo; there's no reason to assume that it will bring peace in the future either.

Finally the Post concludes:

It's not clear that Mr. Abbas is willing to accept the road map's plan for the creation of a Palestinian state with interim borders, or that Mr. Sharon will depart from his two-year-old policy of favoring unilateral Israeli measures to any settlement with Palestinians. To her credit, Ms. Rice doggedly pressed Mr. Abbas to take a firmer stance against militants and Mr. Sharon to stop expanding Israel's West Bank settlements. Those are supposed to be among the first steps in the road map; making them happen would take a good deal more of the midnight oil that the secretary of state burned this week.

Yes but only the Palestinians have taken no steps required of them. In fact, as noted above, the Post would seemingly like to absolve them of those responsibilities. And pressing Mr. Abbas to do anything is laughable. That changes nothing. He still hasn't done it.

The only thing that could possibly make a difference is to demand performance from the Palestinians. If the Bush adminstration won't do it; it will be no more successful than its predecessors. It will also be no better than its predecessors when it comes to the Middle East. I had thought that Bush understood, at least, that the Palestinians had to change for there to be peace in the Middle East. Apparently he's as clueless as Clinton.

What was the impetus for Secretary Rice getting involved? Aluf Benn in Ha'aretz writes ("Sharon's last act on the PA stage"):

However, with the IDF pullout from Rafah it transpired Israel can no longer control Gaza's gates. The Palestinians also conducted a successful public opinion campaign, claiming the Israeli occupation was continuing around it, and that the Strip was "the world's largest prison."

The negotiations lasted months, exhausting both sides and the international mediator James Wolfensohn. Minister Haim Ramon has been saying for a long time that the defense establishment conducted the talks badly, its people patronized the Palestinians and insisted on irrational positions, until they gave them up.

Mofaz at first demanded moving the crossing from Rafah to Kerem Shalom, so that all those entering would be examined by Israeli security. Israel also objected to the European observers. There was also a prolonged fight over authorities between Mofaz and Shimon Peres.

Finally fed up by the foot-dragging, Wolfensohn had an outburst. He told Sharon's adviser Dov Weissglas he intends to tell Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he was ending his mission because of the stalemate.

I don't buy Benn's statement that Israel's defense establishment's demands were "irrational." The two he cites are perfectly legitimate as they would have given Israel more of a say as to who enters Gaza. Final security for Israel in this case does not lie with Israel, a potentially disastrous precedent.

But what's notable here is that Wolfensohn's letter of a month ago apparently was important, though it displayed his pro-Palestinian bias. It also shows the to which the world accepts the Palestinian narrative. "The world's largest prison" was used in many publications. It effectively nullified any diplomatic gain Israel may have realized from the Gaza withdrawal.

Another article in Ha'aretz (that notes that not even a week after the Gaza deal there's a terror alert closing down the Erez crossing) gives "credit" to the Israel Policy Forum for dictating to Israel:

Sources affiliated with the liberal wing of the American Jewish community told Haaretz that New York Jewish leaders had encouraged Rice to intervene aggressively in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute over the Gaza border crossings, telling her this would gain the support of American Jews, according to sources affiliated with the community's liberal wing.

In particular, the sources said, they urged her to take a tough line against Israel, especially on issues such as a settlement freeze and dismantling illegal settlement outposts. The sources said several leading New York Jews held talks with Rice recently at which these issues, as well as the impasse over the border crossings, were discussed.

However, they also urged her to press the Palestinian Authority to meet its commitment to fight terror.

If true this is even more disturbing than Dr. Rice listening to Wolfensohn. On what grounds does the Israel Policy Forum (later identified as the group making these recommendations) have to tell the Secretary of State what to do. And on what basis would she listen to such a self interested group?

And by the way she urged teh PA to meet its commitment. That's really effective.

Arieh O'Sullivan has a devastating analysis of the deal:

In the small picture, giving up control of the Rafah crossing is just another price Israel paid for quitting the Gaza Strip. But in the larger picture, it shows the lack of Israeli vision about how exactly it plans to control the Palestinians as they assume greater sovereignty.

What would impact directly on Israel's security would be the importation of Katyusha rockets and artillery (such as long range mortars) since they are so far the only weapons that could seriously penetrate the Israeli shield erected around the coastal strip.

The danger of the Rafah precedent will be apparent when the Palestinians open their sea and air port where this sort of weapons could be more readily imported. It will be difficult for Israel to insist on a veto here after giving it up on the land crossing to Egypt.

Furthermore, the introduction of international supervision and Egypt also makes it all the more difficult to attempt to shut down the crossing should, for example, there be severe terrorist attacks in Israel.

Earlier in the article he noted that the defense establishment was playing down the effect of the agreement, but as he noted that seemed to be sour grapes.

And the editors of the Post also make a lot of sense:

Agreements per se will not quash terrorism; that requires a fundamental decision to do so, even in the face of great risk. Not only is that a decision that the PA has never taken in the past, but it is one that the PA's current leader has talked about much but has not translated into action.

On Tuesday, the same day that the Rafah agreement was being ironed out, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas went so far as to accuse Israel of being "determined that Palestinians pass through a civil war," from which we can conclude that he will not forcibly disarm Hamas or any other terrorist group.

Not that Abbas has much incentive to fight terrorists, other than his obligation in signed accords. After all, the same EU that is to send monitors to Kerem Shalom in a week's time has never taken practical steps to see that the PA upholds its obligations. Only Israeli military actions against terrorism, and not signed documents, have ever consistently provided a disincentive for the PA's cooperation with, and tolerance of, terrorist groups.

In the blog world DovBear makes some points about the dangers of this deal, but this is pure cynicism on his part. There hasn't been a concession that Israel has made that he hasn't approved of regardless of the cost. He was a big fan of the expulsion of Jews from Gaza and felt no sympathy for the people whose lives were uprooted. Nor do I recall his outrage when Kassems started flying out of Gaza after the Jews left. The criticisms he makes are real but he doesn't believe them; he's just scoring points against people he disagrees with.

Meryl Yourish addresses DovBear's outrage:

I must point out, though, that Israel loses no matter who’s in the White House, Dov. Clinton sure as hell didn’t help Israel.

Daled Amos follows up on James Taranto and deconstructs Secretary Rice's ahistorical speech in which she implies that the Palestinians had sovereignty prior to 1967:

Of course, it could be a simple slip of the tongue. But that is unlikely. Just look at how she starts off:

Good morning. Two months ago, Israel and the Palestinian Authority took an unprecedented step on the road to peace with the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, returning control of that territory to the Palestinian people.

There she is saying that in disengaging, Israel is "returning control of that territory to the Palestinian people." Bad enough she buys into the "Palestinian people" meme, but from the start she is saying that Israel is returning control, as opposed to giving control.

And finally Daled Amos brings up another administration. It's too depressing to go there.

Outside the Beltway also weighed in, concluding:

In the narrow view, the Israeli government gives up control of its most dangerous border with no concessions and would therefore seem to be in a weakened position until and unless the economic gains on the other side are realized. One hopes there is an equally offsetting but as-of-yet unreported countermeasure.

In the cartoon world, Cox and Forkum are skeptical.

Dry Bones is angry.

Posted by SoccerDad at November 16, 2005 11:19 PM | TrackBack