Talking Points

Scott was quicker off the mark than I to flag Nicholas Kristof's op-ed in today's New York Times, and he rightfully highlights important points contained therein. His post below is very much worth reading. I'd add that the lack of debate in America about Israel and the particulars Scott mentions--settlements, unforeseen consequences of policy initiatives, etc--can at times make it strange to be here as an American. I say this a week after numerous top politicians and 2008 candidates went to the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) convention and made sure to say all the "right" things. Being here, and hearing all that purposeful, largely unqualified, seemingly unexamined, completely un-nuanced (if that's a word) support coming out of that meeting from American politicians--who repeatedly displayed the tendency to judge the policies of the government here (and the U.S. government backing of the same) on some highly subjective and possibly imagined scale of morality, rather than actual effectiveness, rather than if they work or not--you can start wondering if you are looking at or talking about the same place. There are unquestionably things here worth supporting and defending. And of course it's not only the Israelis who have to really work if they are interested in making things better. The Palestinians first and foremost, along with Arab countries and others obviously have a huge role to play, and have to make some real decisions. But I'm not sure how one looks at how things have been going here over recent years--as the emphasis has moved from peace to security, which are different things, the first delivering the second but the second not delivering the first--and thinks it's working, or is even slightly satisfactory.

Speaking of the Palestinians, and initial responses to their new government: Israel, instantly, said they would talk to no one other than President Mahmoud Abbas. The rest of the government is tainted by association Hamas Ministers, with Hamas beliefs and methods and the blood on their hands, and now tainted by failing to show that it, the government, as a body, is ready to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and recognize all past agreements. No big surprise there. From other corners, more equivocation and efforts to find a way to deal with some of the people involved. Norway went ahead and recognized the government right away. France invited the new Foreign Minister, an unaffiliated moderate, to Paris for a visit. The Russians said it was a hopeful step, the United Nations and the European Union (Norway is not a member) both deemed it a promising development, and the Brits said they're willing to watch and see how the government performs. The London attitude overlaps with the indications coming from Washington and a spokesperson from the American Consulate in Jerusalem, that the Americans will look to deal with some of the non-Hamas ministers, men, one assumes, like Salam Fayyad, the new Finance Minister. More flexibility there than I might have imagined, but I suppose Washington very much wants to bolster Abbas, and they must know that continuing to isolate the entire Palestinian government, and the people as well, isn't helping that aim.

An interesting scene at the legislature building in Ramallah yesterday, when the legislators gathered to ratify the new cabinet. There were numerous empty chairs where council members now in jail would usually sit. In their place were large pictures of them. When the session started, another was happening simultaneously in Gaza--where Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh were, among others--the proceedings of which were beamed into the Ramallah via video conferencing technology and displayed on screens mounted on the walls. (The pictures and sounds of Ramallah were likewise beamed to Gaza.) In Ramallah, once things got underway, the imprisoned parliamentarians' wives took the seats their husbands would have occupied, often with their children, whose silence was bought was ice cream throughout the lengthy proceedings. It contained some elements of the absurd. A government sitting in two different places, unable to sit in the same room, a third of its members in prison, their chairs taken by angry wives and children downing spoonfuls of vanilla and chocolate.

The sessions was heavily attended (by those not in jail). Lots of journalists and diplomatic observers there as well. But it was hard to detect any great note of optimism, any great energy for this. Hope, I think, but hope tempered with the experience of the loss of hope, and a general lack of faith in Palestinian leadership. Everyone wants these guys to stop the violence and do something to stop what feels like a decade-long slide into deeper and deeper misery. But it doesn't seem that many believe they can actually do it, that they are able or willing to put aside their differences and base desires (power, greed, money) and worst instincts--towards corruption, towards wanting to fight to the end no matter what and no matter who gets hurt, towards asserting one version of Islam over and above others--to actually do what needs to be done to make life better.

Will they, for instance, be able to help BBC journalist Alan Johnston get safely home, or prevent future instances when one group or another takes someone like him to make a political point, or for ransom? Will they be able to stop the next set of gunmen who try to kidnap as UN official and then shoot up his car, as happened to John Ging on Friday afternoon? Some unity would be required from this supposed Unity Government. Yet in the first two speeches, Abbas, from the Fatah party, and Haniyeh, of Hamas, showed they are still inclined to move in different directions, or at least stress different points. Abbas was conciliatory in tone, talking up the need for dialogue and negotiation. Haniyeh was more strident, expectedly so, asserting again that Palestinians have the right to resist. He also called for a Palestinian state at the 1967 borders and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. The right of return is a non-starter to Israel, but the other, the state with 1967 borders, is being put forth by some as an implied recognition of Israel (you know, since something has to be on the other side of those borders...). That's not likely to placate anyone, but is more evidence that Hamas is trying to inch its way forward, to make little bits of progress, and keep its primacy (and firepower) in the territories without making any big ideological concessions.

And those are two politicians speaking, knowing they are being heard. What about what's going on at street level? Is that working? Can it work? Can these parties, Hamas and Fatah, maneuver their way through this without falling apart? Arab countries should be debating this. Americans should be debating it, and Israeli policy, too. Because what happens here does have an impact beyond these borders, and even if someone wants to say that this is progress, baby steps or what have you, a lot of people have to go through a lot of miserable days because of what is and is not happening. And a lot of them are young and getting older, and in the days to come, ice cream won't keep them quiet.
--Phil Zabriskie/Jerusalem