×
I'm certainly in agreement with the thrust of this bipartisan letter exhorting the administration to make the upcoming Israel/Palestine talks meaningful, but I can't say I'm optimistic. The talks, after all, are between Ohlmert and Abbas -- Hamas, who now controls much of the Gaza and who agreement is crucial is any peace deal is to be sustained, is not represented. How you can make peace without the participant of a major player is beyond my comprehension. Even so, this bit of the letter is very, very important:
Too often in the past, progress has been stymied by the gap between lofty political statements and dire realities on the ground. The conference therefore should also result in agreement on concrete steps to improve living conditions and security, including a mutual and comprehensive cease-fire in the West Bank and Gaza, an exchange of prisoners, prevention of weapons smuggling, cracking down on militias, greater Palestinian freedom of movement, the removal of unjustified checkpoints, dismantling of Israeli outposts, and other tangible measures to accelerate the process of ending the occupation.Of utmost importance, if the conference is to have any credibility, it must coincide with a freeze in Israeli settlement expansion. It is impossible to conduct a serious discussion on ending the occupation while settlement construction proceeds apace. Efforts also should focus on alleviating the situation in Gaza and allowing the resumption of its economic life.If the peace process was producing regular, tangible results, and Abbas's negotiations were leading to large improvements in the lots of the Palestinians, one could imagine pressure building for more such talks, and popular sentiment constraining Hamas from ruining them. Before we get to a grand bargain, we're really going to need a show of good faith -- and that can come from America, too, who could pressure Israel to accede to some of the terms and amp up their own aid to the Palestinians.--Ezra Klein
