I hesitated a couple of times before titling this post, because I have been deeply pessimistic about the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis, as any regular reader knows. Still, a couple of things make me unexpectedly if very cautiously hopeful that something may have changed.
From the AP:
Hamas’ leader said Saturday his group was willing to give peace negotiations with Israel six months to reach an agreement for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, but threatened a new uprising if the talks fail.
Try to forget about the threat for now (Hamas is always threatening something) and look beyond it to what he’s offering: peace negotiations with Israel, a nation that previously didn’t exist (in his mind). I consider this to be a tiny sliver of good news. Read the whole thing.
Even better—in a way—is Steven Erlanger’s brief piece in today’s New York Times. Whereas other news outlets (including, ironically, another AP story) chose to say that Israel had flatly rejected the Hamas offer, Erlanger (who is notably cool toward Israel) indicates—with a supporting headline (”Palestinians and Israel Say They Are Open to Truce“)—a softening in the Israeli position.
Israel called the offer a media presentation, but said it was open to a more serious, formal proposal. “It’s not a question of, ‘You go first,’ ” said Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. “It’s a question of, ‘What are we talking about?’ ” A halt to all Israeli military operations in return for a halt to rocket fire alone would be unacceptable, she said.
Then Erlanger gives “moderate” Fatah leader Abbas a chance to acknowledge some culpability on the part of the Palestinians***:
On Thursday night in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, said that since the summer, Palestinians have been “victims of a barbaric Israeli offensive that has left more than 400 dead and 1,500 wounded while thousands of homes have been destroyed.” But he added, “All that on the pretext of homemade rocket fire, and unfortunately we are giving them such a pretext.
Since both sides have given an inch, Judge Erlanger now deems it safe to tell the facts about the present impasse:
In fact, Israel re-entered Gaza in late June in response to the capture of a soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, by a group of Palestinian militants that included Hamas. Hamas said that they were responding to Israeli shelling that had killed civilians; Israel said the shelling was in response to Palestinian rocket fire. Since Israel pulled its settlers and troops out of Gaza in September 2005, at least 1,100 rockets have been fired from Gaza, and four Israelis have died — two of them in the past 10 days.
Mr. Abbas, aided by Egypt, is negotiating with Hamas over a national-unity government that could meet the conditions for ending an international freeze on direct budget aid, as well as Israel’s withholding of tax and duties collected on behalf of the Palestinians. The government is also held up by disagreements over the release of Corporal Shalit and different demands about the number of Palestinian prisoners to be exchanged for him. Israel wants the corporal back before releasing prisoners. These issues are holding back the prospect of a meeting between Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas.
That wasn’t so hard, was it?
We’ll see what happens, but for me this is a straw in the wind. I take this news to mean that in some way that is imperceptible to us but significant to the shrewdest players in the Middle East—the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis—something has changed.
Let us hope that our politicians and commentators stay on top of current events, pick up on the hint of something positive on the horizon, and not pull their usual lagging-indicator act and act as a drag on progress in the Middle East.
——
*** For a different take on “culpability,” see what perversely interesting things UN Human Rights commissioner Louise Arbour has to say in this article [emphasis added]
Israel could be considered deserving of more blame for its actions in the Lebanon war than Hizbullah, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post Thursday.
Asked by the Post if there was a distinction under human rights law between missile attacks aimed at killing civilians and military strikes in which civilians are unintentionally killed, Arbour said the two could not be equated.
“In one case you could have, for instance, a very objectionable intent - the intent to harm civilians, which is very bad - but effectively not a lot of harm is actually achieved,” she said. “But how can you compare that with a case where you may not have an intent but you have recklessness [in which] civilian casualties are foreseeable? The culpability or the intent may not sound as severe, but the actual harm is catastrophic.”
Aargh. More on this another time.
But I really wish I didn’t have to hear all this shit about culpability. I am sick to death of the sick urge to punish. It is everywhere I look.
