The punditocracy may well be correct that the Israel-Palestine peace process that the Obama White House is now attempting to jump-start is doomed to failure—but their analyses as to why are predictably skewed. Bonnie Erbe writes in US News & World Report [2]: "How can two sides negotiate as long as Hamas flouts Palestinian Authority control? ...[A]s long as the Gaza problem continues to exist, there can be no peace for Israel..." It has been a fundamental of all peace proposals since the Oslo process began that there be some kind of corridor linking the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. Yet Ma'an News Agency [3] reported July 16 that Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman [4] is proposing to do just the opposite—to unilaterally separate Gaza from the West Bank, allowing it to function as an independent entity—but behind "hermetically sealed" borders, making the enclave even more of a de facto open-air prison camp than it already is.
Ma'an News Agency [5] also reported that day that both Hamas and Fatah have rejected Lieberman's plan. Note that it was announced more than a month before Hamas resumed armed attacks this week.
So how come we never see statements in the mass media like "As long as the Israel problem continues to exist, there can be no peace for Gaza"?
Just asking.
See our last posts on Israel/Palestine [6] and Gaza [7].
Please leave a tip [8] or answer the Exit Poll [9].
