rssDaniel Kurtzer on Israel/Palestine
Thursday, January 08, 2009 at 12:28 pm
- 6 Comments
Daniel Kurtzer is the progressive choice to be President-elect Barack Obama’s envoy for Arab-Israeli issues, as he’s considered more even-handed than his presumed competitor for the job, veteran peace-processor Dennis Ross, though former Bush 41 and 43 official Richard Haass has emerged as a new prospect. It’s been reported this morning that Ross has some kind of portfolio, possibly focusing more on Iran, and so the prospect that Kurtzer will have influence in the Obama administration is enough to pack the U.S. Institute of Peace’s panel on Israel-Palestine and the prospects for peace. Well, that and the ongoing war in Gaza.
The panel starts off with the disturbing news that rockets have been fired on Israel from Lebanon, though they’re not presumed to have come from Hezbollah. Moderator Sam Lewis says Kurtzer is “constrained” in his remarks because he’s still mentioned as a candidate for an important diplomatic position. But Kurtzer — who, if I’m not mistaken, is the only diplomat ever to serve as ambassador to Israel and Egypt — holds forth on the regional picture for peacemaking beyond the Gaza war. “What are the goals the various protagonists [in the Gaza war] are pursuing?” he asks, and he says “no one” has a good answer. Post-conflict, “there will be an unacceptable situation on the ground, no matter how this particular phase” wraps up, because Israel and Hamas are like “that Monty Python sketch with the 100-meter dash with runners for no sense of direction.” As a result of this ambiguity, Kurtzer sees little likelihood that either side will be satisfied with a ceasefire. “You have the goals and objectives of these two players moving in different directions,” making it hard to “lead to a conclusion where a mutuality of interest will emerge from it.”
So the question is whether “there is a mutuality of interest in the larger Arab-Israeli” conflict that the United States can work toward. He holds as self-evident that resolving the conflict “is a core American interest, not a favor we do for the parties.” If so, then it’s incumbent on the U.S. to bring about “a concrete end” to the conflict, not just between Israel and Palestine but between Israel and Syria. “Exploratory phases or consultative phases can probably can be telescoped” so that “parties can actually confront tough decisions” about the substance of peace — land, water, borders, etc. “The diplomatic toolbox is not a mystery anymore,” he says.
But does Palestine need to have one leadership, not split between Hamas and Fatah? Kurtzer thinks it “would be impossible to implement an agreement” if not, but “I don’t think we have fully tested the proposition” of negotiating an agreement with the Palestinian leadership — he doesn’t come out and say Fatah, but it’s probably what he means — and then subjecting it to a Palestinian national referendum. Clearly, he’s thought about working around Hamas.
“One cannot ignore the fact that this chessboard is populated by people who have to endure [this crisis] every day,” Kurtzer says, pointing out how Israel considers it absolutely unacceptable to come under constant rocket bombardment from Palestinian areas and how Palestine considers it absolutely unacceptable for Israeli reprisals to carry such “civilian cost.”
Kurtzer couches the position of the Obama administration in conditional terms, but it’s not unreasonable to interpret his remarks as saying that the incoming administration sees it this way. To stick with the Monty Python analogy, Kurtzer’s essentially going “wink-wink-nudge-nudge-knowwhatImean.”
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
6 Comments
Comment posted January 8, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
The US is partially responsible for the attack and massacre of the 700+ Palestinians because of its unconditional support of Israel. For example, the US claims Hamas violated the cease fire truce with Israel and is therefore responsible for the attack and slaughter of defenseless, Palestinian civilians. This is simply not true. Israel violated the cease fire truce by going into Gaza and killing 6 to 10 of Hamas men, coupled with the fact that the attack was influenced by politics and approved by Bush and the US Congress 6 mos. in advance. Bush and the US Congress promised Israel unconditional support for its attack on the Palestinians, and agreed to veto all action and condemnation of the UN Security Council against Israel for the attack. In other words, the US gave Israel the green light to take whatever action it wanted against 1.5 million defenseless, Palestinians civilians, even though the US was fully aware that the Hamas Organization with a self made army and self made guns was no match for Israel, the 4th most powerful military in the world.There can be no peace in the Middle East without a Mediator that fair to the Palestinians as well as the Jews, and the US appears incapable of being fair to Palestinians. The US should be removed as Mediator from the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict on grounds of being a dishonest broker. Perhaps, then, a Mediator can be found that fair enough to both parties to negotiate a durable peace agreement between Jews and Palestinians.
Comment posted January 8, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
No mention of the Syrian Ambassador Imad Mustafa's strong comments during the questions answer period? While Kurtzer might have thought about working with Hamas, there was little discussion of the resistence movement's organizational and military capacity. Not the mention the powerful polemics published by Hamas in the Guardian and LA Times. Maybe the Palestinian Authority needs to work on its PR campaign before Abbas loses more credibility.
Comment posted January 8, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
“What are the goals the various protagonists [in the Gaza war] are pursuing?” he asks, and he says “no one” has a good answer.
Actually, many people already know the answer. The Zionist agenda has been – and still is – the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Palestine.
With over 700 people already massacred in Gaza, it's no longer difficult to believe.
The Palestine Review
http://palestinereview.com
Pingback posted January 9, 2009 @ 12:33 am
[...] The Washington Independent » Daniel Kurtzer on Israel/Palestine [...]
Comment posted January 10, 2009 @ 11:16 am
As a Jewish progressive who has blogged for Kurtzer over Ross, it is time to look at the primary limitation of both gentlemen — which is this “working around Hamas” business. Hamas is a major player in Palestine, and anybody with half a brain knows that they will have to be engaged. What will happen if Hamas wins not only a Parliamentary majority but the Presidency in the next elections? I can't expect Israel to understand its own self-interest (having lived in Israel too long for that), but the US will have to stop relying on Middle East experts like Ross, Kurtzer, Indyck, and, yes, Bill Clinton, who are all liberal Zionists — if they want there to be some sort of durable settlement between Israel and Palestine.
Comment posted January 10, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
As a Jewish progressive who has blogged for Kurtzer over Ross, it is time to look at the primary limitation of both gentlemen — which is this “working around Hamas” business. Hamas is a major player in Palestine, and anybody with half a brain knows that they will have to be engaged. What will happen if Hamas wins not only a Parliamentary majority but the Presidency in the next elections? I can't expect Israel to understand its own self-interest (having lived in Israel too long for that), but the US will have to stop relying on Middle East experts like Ross, Kurtzer, Indyck, and, yes, Bill Clinton, who are all liberal Zionists — if they want there to be some sort of durable settlement between Israel and Palestine.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
