DOCSLIB.ORG

Isolation of Hamas Prevents Middle East Peace

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Isolation of Hamas Prevents Middle East Peace No. 8 September 2010 Noref Report US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace Henry Siegman Introduction Failed bilateral talks over these past 16 years have same time must make it clear these assurances are not shown that a Middle East peace accord can never be available if Israel insists on denying Palestinians a reached by the parties themselves. Israeli governments viable and sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza. believe they can defy international condemnation of their illegal colonial project in the West Bank because This paper focuses on the other major obstacle to they can count on the US to oppose international a permanent status agreement: the absence of an sanctions. effective Palestinian interlocutor. Addressing Hamas’ legitimate grievances – and as noted in a recent Bilateral talks that are not framed by US-formulated CENTCOM report, Hamas has legitimate grievances parameters (based on Security Council resolutions, – could lead to its return to a Palestinian coalition the Oslo accords, the Arab Peace Initiative, the government that would provide Israel with a credible “road map” and other previous Israeli-Palestinian peace partner. If that outreach fails because of Hamas’ agreements) cannot succeed. rejectionism, the organization’s ability to prevent a reasonable accord negotiated by other Palestinian Israel’s government believes that the US Congress political parties will have been significantly impeded. will not permit an American president to issue such parameters and demand their acceptance. What If the Obama administration will not lead an hope there is for the bilateral talks that resume in international initiative to define the parameters of an Washington DC on September 2 depends entirely on Israeli-Palestinian agreement and actively promote President Obama proving that belief to be wrong, and Palestinian political reconciliation, Europe must on whether the “bridging proposals” he has promised, do so, and hope America will follow. Unfortunately, should the talks reach an impasse, are a euphemism there is no silver bullet that can guarantee the goal of for the submission of American parameters. Such a “two states living side by side in peace and security.” US initiative must offer Israel iron-clad assurances But President Obama’s present course absolutely for its security within its pre-1967 borders, but at the precludes it. Henry Siegman is president of the US/Middle East Project (USMEP), an independent policy institute. He is also a research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Programme of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Mr. Siegman has published extensively on the Middle East peace process and has been consulted by governments, international agencies, and non-governmental organizations. Major studies directed by Mr. Siegman for the Council on Foreign Relations include Harnessing trade for development and growth in the Middle East (2002), and Strengthening Palestinian public institutions (1999), conducted on behalf of the European Commission and the government of Norway. In 2002, he directed a study commissioned by the US Department of State and the US National Intelligence Council on the implications of “viability” for Palestinian statehood. September 2010 1 Henry Siegman: US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace Road to nowhere Such a reconsideration must begin with a rejection of the notion that a Middle East peace accord can ever Peace talks at an impasse be reached by the parties themselves, with the US role The Obama administration has reversed the limited to “facilitation.” Failed bilateral talks over trajectory of previous administrations’ engagement these past 16 years have shown that left to their own with the Middle East peace process. Presidents Bill devices, negotiations between Israeli governments Clinton and George W. Bush avoided dealing with – that believe resorting to overwhelming military the issue in the early stages of their presidency. power is the solution to every political and President Clinton pursued a peace agreement far security challenge – and a powerless Palestinian more seriously than did President Bush, but not until adversary can only result in the enlargement and the closing days of his second term. By contrast, completion of Israel’s colonial project in the West President Obama addressed the issue aggressively Bank, notwithstanding American “facilitation,” or virtually the day after he took his oath of office. “bridging proposals,” as this administration prefers He appointed Senator Mitchell his personal Middle to call it. Bilateral talks that are not framed by US- East peace envoy, delivered a historic speech to the formulated parameters (based on Security Council Arab and Muslim world in Cairo, and presented resolutions, the Oslo accords, the Arab Peace Netanyahu’s government the toughest demand for a Initiative, the “road map” and other previous Israeli- freeze on all further Israeli settlement enlargement in Palestinian agreements) cannot succeed. the West Bank and in East Jerusalem ever made by any US administration – and all within the first year A two-state solution will remain beyond everyone’s of the first term of his presidency. reach because even the most hardline Israeli governments are convinced that the US Congress But it has been all downhill since. The settlement will not permit an American president to issue freeze Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to turned such parameters and demand their acceptance by out to be a sham, the proximity talks a monumental Israel. Israeli governments believe they can defy waste of time. President Obama’s most recent international condemnations of their colonial project encounter with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the West Bank because they can count on the US at the White House on July 6, at which he felt to oppose international measures that would sanction constrained to express admiration for the seriousness their illegal behaviour. of the commitment to a two-state solution of a man who has shown nothing but disdain for the idea, If it is to succeed, a US effort to rescue the two- has triggered despair throughout the region deeper state option must be prepared to offer Israel iron- than was experienced during the disengaged Bush clad assurances for its security within its pre-1967 administration. borders, but at the same time make it clear that such assurances are not available if Israel insists on denying Palestinians a viable and sovereign state in Bilateral talks cannot succeed the West Bank and Gaza. The US administration has announced the launching of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) and that the parties have agreed to Credible Palestinian partner lacking place a one-year limit on these talks. But nothing Which brings us to the other major obstacle to a much beyond spin to sustain the illusion of permanent status agreement – the absence of an continued American “engagement” can be expected effective Palestinian interlocutor, due to the bitter from this administration until at least after the internecine divisions between Fatah and Hamas, November congressional elections, if then. That divisions that have been fostered and deepened by interregnum provides time for a reconsideration of US and European support for Israel’s determination this administration’s Middle East peace strategies to exclude Hamas from Palestinian political life and that have been undone with humiliating ease by Netanyahu at every turn. September 2010 2 Henry Siegman: US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace to bring about its demise. It should be clear by now formal Israeli-Palestinian agreement (the Agreement that this policy has only strengthened Hamas, and on Movement and Access) in 2005 for the free that it has retained the ability to torpedo any Israeli- movement of people and goods between these two Palestinian peace agreement it is not party to. areas, brokered by James Wolfensohn, then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice’s special envoy for Gaza This view, shared by virtually every Middle disengagement, an obligation Israel violated even Eastern political and security expert, was expressed before the ink on the document dried.2 concisely as the conclusion of a recent essay on the subject in Foreign Affairs: “Hamas is here to Hamas was denied its electoral mandate and excluded stay. Refusing to deal with it will only make the from the West Bank because Fatah conspired with situation worse: Palestinian moderates will become Israel’s government and the Bush administration to weaker, and Hamas will grow stronger. If the Obama carry out a putsch by Mohammed Dahlan’s militia administration is to move its plans for peace forward, forces in Gaza to overthrow Hamas. The attempted the challenge of Hamas has to be met first.”1 putsch was pre-empted by Hamas in a bloody manner.3 But the way Dahlan’s forces had previously As argued in this paper, a more balanced approach to dealt with Hamas’ members that it had imprisoned Hamas, addressing legitimate grievances, could lead (or the way Abbas’ Fatah has dealt with them in the to its return to a Palestinian coalition government that West Bank since) should not leave anyone with false would provide Israel with a credible peace partner. If illusions about the treatment that awaited Hamas had that outreach fails because of Hamas’ rejectionism, Dahlan’s putsch succeeded. its ability to prevent a reasonable accord negotiated by other Palestinian political parties will have been seriously undermined. Hamas’ obsolete charter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gaza and the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood by Henry Siegman
    Expert Analysis August 2014 Gaza and the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood By Henry Siegman Executive summary The slaughter of Palestinian civilians and the Dresden-like reduction to rubble of large parts of Gaza by Israel’s military forces in the name of its own citizens’ security has exposed the hypocrisy at the heart of Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians. Israel’s claim to the right of self-defense in order to prevent its victims’ emergence from under its occupation is the ultimate definition of chutzpa. Without entering the debate over whether those rocket assaults were precipitated by Israel’s own violations of truces and cease-fire accords it negotiated with Hamas, as documented by various analysts (including Amira Hass, Peter Beinart, Nathan Thrall, Sara Roy and others), Israel’s claim to self-defense is based on a glaring falsehood. An occupying power is under obligation in international law to do two things: to end the occupa- tion, and until it does so, to protect the population under its occupation. Israel is in blatant violation of both of these obligations. The security threats to its own citizens it invokes to justify its assaults which regularly result in the killing of far more Palestinian non- combatants than militants are triggered by its occupation. An occupied people told by its occupiers its subjugation is permanent, and that they will never be allowed to exercise the right to national self-determination and sovereign existence on territories recognized by the interna- tional community as their rightful patrimony, has every right to resort to resistance, including violent resistance, to achieve its freedom, for they are reacting to the violence that is keeping them illegally under occupation.
    [Show full text]
  • Imposing Middle East Peace Forceful Outside Intervention Is the Only Alternative to an Unstable and Dangerous Status Quo
    18 The Nation. January 25, 2010 Imposing Middle East Peace Forceful outside intervention is the only alternative to an unstable and dangerous status quo. by HENRY SIEGMAN srael’s relentless drive to establish “facts Olmert was mistaken in one respect, for he on the ground” in the occupied West said Israel would turn into an apartheid state Bank, a drive that continues in violation when the Arab population in Greater Israel of even the limited settlement freeze outnumbers the Jewish population. But the to which Prime Minister Benjamin relative size of the populations is not the INeta nyahu committed himself, seems finally decisive factor in such a transition. Rather, to have succeeded in locking in the irrevers- the turning point comes when a state denies ibility of its colonial project. As a result of national self-determination to a part of its that “achievement,” one that successive population—even one that is in the minor- Israeli governments have long sought in ity—to which it has also denied the rights order to preclude the possibility of a two- of citizenship. state solution, Israel has crossed the thresh- When a state’s denial of the individual and PETER O. ZIERLEIN old from “the only democracy in the Middle national rights of a large part of its population East” to the only apartheid regime in the Western world. becomes permanent, it ceases to be a democracy. When the The inevitability of such a transformation has been held out reason for that double disenfranchisement is that population’s not by “Israel bashers” but by the country’s own leaders.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations International Meeting in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace
    UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL MEETING IN SUPPORT OF ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE The two-State solution: a key prerequisite for achieving peace and stability in the Middle East Moscow, 1 and 2 July 2015 ___________________________________________________________________________ CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY PLENARY III Efforts in the United Nations: the next steps Paper presented by Mr. Henry Siegman President U.S./Middle East Project New York CPR/IM/2015/15 2 The Two-State Solution is Dead. Long-live the Two-State Solution Anyone addressing a United Nations conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at this time faces the difficult task of not allowing himself to be distracted by the many timely subjects that virtually cry out for comment—beginning with the report of the United Nations committee that investigated the Gaza war, the Israeli elections that resulted in an extreme right-wing, anti-democratic government, the Palestinian submission to the International Criminal Court, new initiatives for a Security Council peacemaking role, and the pathetic and chronic inability of Palestinian leadership to heal its internal divisions that constitute a gift to its enemies that keeps on giving. I will avoid these important subjects and limit my remarks to my assignment, defining the present situation and where we go from here. The two-state solution is dead. It did not die a natural death. It was strangulated as Jewish settlements in the West Bank were expanded and deepened by successive Israeli governments with the express purpose of preventing the emergence of a viable Palestinian state. The settlement project has achieved its intended irreversibility, not only because of its breadth and depth but also because of the dominant political clout of the settlers and their supporters within Israel who have both ideological and economic stakes in a Greater Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • No Peace Possible Between Israel and Palestinians Without Hamas
    Siegman- No Peace Possible without Hamas 1/4 Siegman: No Peace Possible Between Israel and Palestinians without Hamas - Es gibt keinen Frieden zwischen Israel und Palästinensern ohne Hamas Henry Siegman, Direktor des United States/Middle East Project, im Interview Im Folgenden dokumentieren wir ein Interview, das im März 2008 mit Henry Siegman, dem Di- rektor des United States/Middle East Project des Council on Foreign Relations gemacht wurde. Henry Siegman war früher Direktor des American Jewish Congress und gilt als einer der bes- ten Kenner des Nahost-Konflikts. Die Auffassungen, die Siegmann hier vertritt, decken sich weitgehend mit einem Artikel, den er am 10. April 2008 in der Süddeutschen Zeitung veröffentlichte: "Israels falsche Freunde". Siegman: No Peace Possible Between Israel and Palestinians without Hamas Interviewee: Henry Siegman, Director, United States/Middle East Project Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor March 7, 2008 Henry SiegmanHenry Siegman, an expert on Middle East negotiations, says that no peace will be possible between Israel and Palestinians unless Hamas is brought into the process. “The notion that the Israeli government leaders and our own government have that it is possible to exclude Hamas from peace talks and have a successful result from those talks is a fantasy,” he says. “It’s not going to happen.” Because of President Bush’s refusal to deal with Hamas, he says, it is unlikely that any pro- gress can be made until there is a new president in the White House. There’s a bit of a lull right now in the fighting between Hamas and Israel, which has led to over one hundred Palestinians dead and a few Israelis in the past couple of weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Transitional Justice and Post-Conflict Israel/Palestine: Assessing the Applicability of the Truth Commission Paradigm, 38 Case W
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 38 Issue 2 2006-2007 2007 Transitional Justice and Post-Conflict Israel/ Palestine: Assessing the Applicability of the Truth Commission Paradigm Ariel Meyerstein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Ariel Meyerstein, Transitional Justice and Post-Conflict Israel/Palestine: Assessing the Applicability of the Truth Commission Paradigm, 38 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 281 (2007) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol38/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE AND POST-CONFLICT ISRAEL/PALESTINE: ASSESSING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TRUTH COMMISSION PARADIGM Ariel Meyerstein * Redemption lies in remembering. The Baal Shem Tov I. INTRODU CTION .....................................................................................282 II. UNDERSTANDING THE REALITY OF INTERCONNECTIVITY ...................285 A. Interconnectivity and the "Peace& ProsperityParadigm .........285 B. The CurrentMoment: Paralysis.................................................... 291 C. The Conflict Culture, Victim Ideologies, and the Needfor Critical H istory ..............................................................................297
    [Show full text]
  • Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress
    Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress Jim Zanotti Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs December 2, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41514 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress Summary This report and its appendixes provide background information on Hamas, or the Islamic Resistance Movement, and U.S. policy towards it. It also includes information and analysis on (1) the threats Hamas currently poses to U.S. interests, (2) how Hamas compares with other Middle East terrorist groups, (3) Hamas’s ideology and policies (both generally and on discrete issues), (4) its leadership and organization, and (5) its sources of assistance. Finally, the report raises and discusses various legislative and oversight options related to foreign aid strategies, financial sanctions, and regional and international political approaches. In evaluating these options, Congress can assess how Hamas has emerged and adapted over time, and also scrutinize the track record of U.S., Israeli, and international policy to counter Hamas. Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist military and sociopolitical movement that grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood. The United States, Israel, the European Union, and Canada consider Hamas a terrorist organization because of (1) its violent resistance to what it deems Israeli occupation of historic Palestine (constituting present-day Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip), and (2) its rejection of the off-and-on peace process involving Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since the early 1990s. Since Hamas’s inception in 1987, it has maintained its primary base of political support and its military command in the Gaza Strip—a territory it has controlled since June 2007—while also having a significant presence in the West Bank.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Palestinian Authority: an Update
    REFORMING THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY: AN UPDATE April 2004 Report by the INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE ON STRENGTHENING PALESTINIAN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS Michel Rocard, Chair Henry Siegman, Director Yezid Sayigh and Khalil Shikaki, Principal Authors For further information about this Independent Task Force report, please contact Henry Siegman, U.S./Middle East Project, Council on Foreign Relations, 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021, telephone (212) 434-9658, fax (212) 434-9894, or email [email protected]. Copyright © 2004 by the Independent Task Force on Strengthening Palestinian Public Institutions. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This report may be quoted or reproduced, provided the appropriate credit is given to the Independent Task Force on Strengthening Palestinian Public Institutions. 2 CONTENTS Preface 4 Introduction 5 I. The Palestinian Authority Reform Process A. Background 6 B. The Abu Mazen Government (March 2003 – September 2003) 7 C. The Abu Ala’ Government (September 2003 – Present) 8 II. The Impact of Israeli Unilateral Withdrawal from Gaza A. General Prognosis 10 B. Anticipating the Gaza Withdrawal 13 C. Israel’s Role 14 III. The International Community’s Role A. PA Reform 16 B. Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza 17 IV. Appendices 18 3 PREFACE In 1998, the Independent Task Force on Strengthening Palestinian Public Institutions was commissioned by the European Commission and the Government of Norway to undertake a comprehensive study of Palestinian institution building – in the words of the report it issued in 1999, “to determine what is right, what is wrong, and how to fix it.” The report, Strengthening Palestinian Public Institutions, published in both English and Arabic, remains the most detailed and authoritative guide on the subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Transatlantic Dialogue on Middle East Policy’
    Conference Report ‘Transatlantic Dialogue on Middle East Policy’ The Hague, Friday 5th March 2004 International meeting of experts organised by the Clingendael Institute (The Hague) In collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations (New York) June 2004 Desk top publishing: Cheryna Abdoel Wahid Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ Clingendael 7 2597 VH The Hague Telephone: xx-31-70-3245384 Telefax: xx-31-70-3746667 P.O. Box 93080 2509 AB The Hague E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.clingendael.nl © Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyrightholders. Clingendael Institute, P.O. Box 93080, 2509 AB The Hague, The Netherlands © The Clingendael Institute 3 Contents Foreword Dalia Dassa Kaye, Alfred Pijpers 5 Programme of the Conference 7 Words of Welcome Alfred van Staden 9 Introductory Session – Europe and the US in the Middle East. Past, Present and Future Robert Malley 11 William Wallace 17 Debate 23 Session: Gulf Policy Gregory Gause 27 Volker Perthes 33 Jon Alterman 37 Debate 41 Session: The Future of the Middle East Peace Process Henry Siegman 49 Steven Everts 53 Stefano Silvestri 59 Debate 63 Session: Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorism Jonathan Stevenson 73 Peter van Ham 81 Mark Heller 85 Debate 87 Conclusion Jim Goldgeier 91 Epilogue Dalia Dassa Kaye 93 List of Participants 97 © The Clingendael Institute 5 Foreword The idea for this seminar emerged before the rift in transatlantic relations occasioned by the Iraq war in 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relevance of Reconciliation Actions in the Breakdown of Israeli–Palestinian Negotiations, 20001 by Louis Kriesberg
    The Relevance of Reconciliation Actions in the Breakdown of Israeli–Palestinian Negotiations, 20001 by Louis Kriesberg The breakdown of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations toward a final status agreement and the subsequent eruption of violence stunned many partisans of the conflict as well as intermediaries and observers. Although some partisans on each side had argued from the outset that successful negotiations were impossible, leaders of the Palestinians and the Israelis had negotiated directly for several years as if they were possible. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict had become partially transformed but perhaps insufficiently so to support a negotiated agreement acceptable to both sides. The possible role of what might be regarded as reconciliation actions in that partial transformation of the conflict is examined here. The negotiation and mediation processes prior to the breakdown are reviewed, and then different views of the impact of reconciliation actions, or their absence, are assessed. For a decade, beginning with the Madrid Peace Conference in October 1991, Israeli–Palestinian peace negotiations have taken place. The course of the negotiations has been torturous, with steps of progress marked by recurrent stumbles, backsliding, noncompliance with agreements, and deadly violence. Explanations for the difficulties abound, and observers as well as partisans dispute the correct explanation. I examine here the possible effects of recon- ciliation moves, or the lack of them, in explaining the collapse of the negotia- tions and the subsequent violence beginning in September 2000.2 Reconciliation often is considered to be what happens after a conflict is over. An outcome may be unilaterally imposed, and then reconciliation may follow, as was the case between Germany and the victorious countries of World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • THE OCCUPATION of the AMERICAN MIND Israel’S Public Relations War in the U.S
    THE OCCUPATION OF THE AMERICAN MIND Israel’s Public Relations War in the U.S. [Transcript] Introduction Text on screen: “It doesn't matter if justice is on your side. You have to depict your position as just.” – Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel Narrator: On July 8, 2014, Israel launched a devastating military attack on the Gaza Strip. Over the course of 51 days, the Israeli military dropped nearly 20,000 tons of explosives on Gaza, a densely populated area the size of Philadelphia, killing over 2,000 Palestinians and wounding tens of thousands more. The overwhelming majority of these casualties were civilians. Television news montage: This strip of land is being bombarded from the air, sea, and land… Israel launched at least 160 strikes on the Gaza strip… And there’s one less hospital in Gaza now. Israel today flattened Wafa Hospital. Narrator: The sheer scale of the attacks sparked outrage and condemnation around the world. News anchor: Israel’s month-long pounding of Gaza shocked many people around the world. Mass demonstrations have been held in many of the world’s major cities. Narrator: But in the United States, the story was different. Polls showed the American people holding firm in their support for Israel. Anderson Cooper, CNN anchor: This is the latest CNN-ORC poll of Americans – shows 57% of those polled say Israel’s action in Gaza is justified, 34% say unjustified. Narrator: These numbers were striking, but they weren’t new. Over the course of a conflict in which Palestinian casualties have far outnumbered Israeli casualties, the American people have consistently shown far more sympathy for Israelis than for Palestinians.
    [Show full text]
  • Imposing Middle East Peace
    No. 3 January 2010 Noref Report Imposing Middle East Peace Henry Siegman Summary Locked in The continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the Israel’s relentless drive to establish “facts on the ground” West Bank seems to have finally locked in the perma- in the occupied West Bank, a drive that continues in vi- nence of Israel’s colonial project. Israel has crossed olation of even the limited settlement freeze to which the threshold from the Middle East’s only democracy Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed him- to the only “apartheid regime” in the Western world. self, seems finally to have succeeded in locking in the But outside intervention may offer the last hope for a irreversibility of its colonial project. As a result of that reversal of the settlement enterprise and the achieve- “achievement,” one that successive Israeli governments ment of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine have long sought in order to preclude the possibility of a conflict. Since the US is no longer the likely agent of two-state solution, Israel has crossed the threshold from that intervention, it is up to the Europeans and to the “the only democracy in the Middle East” to the only Palestinians themselves to fashion the path to self- apartheid regime in the Western world. determination in the occupied territories. Essential to the success of these efforts is setting aright the The inevitability of such a transformation has been held chronic imbalance of power between Israel and the out not by “Israel bashers” but by the country’s own lead- Palestinians.
    [Show full text]
  • Isreali and Palestinian Intellectuals Who Reject the Current Peace Process Justus R
    Cornell International Law Journal Volume 29 Article 3 Issue 2 1996 Peace and Its Discounts: Isreali and Palestinian Intellectuals Who Reject the Current Peace Process Justus R. Weiner Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Weiner, Justus R. (1996) "Peace and Its Discounts: Isreali and Palestinian Intellectuals Who Reject the Current Peace Process," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 29: Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol29/iss2/3 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REVIEW ESSAY Peace and Its Discontents: Israeli and Palestinian Intellectuals Who Reject the Current Peace Process Justus R. Weiner* Peace and Its Discontents: Essays on Palestine in the Middle East Peace Process. By Edward W. Said. (Vintage Press, 1995); Crisis In: Israel-A Peace Plan to Resist. By Yechiel M. Leiter (SPI Books, 1994). 1 Introduction The title of Edward Said's book, Peace and Its Discontents,2 is, as he would readily acknowledge, in error. No "peace" currently exists between Israel and the Palestinians. The protracted process that began with secret meet- ings in Norway three years ago has thus far yielded five interim agree- ments,3 each of which advanced the process incrementally. The * The author is an international human rights lawyer and a member of the Israel and New York Bar Associations.
    [Show full text]