![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizsbKUfaA27ZsLU1CtN2zD6JFHvPIV2je2V6Ee73swTE6TAiubzA8eQ56T0mRcRmpSfD-1KOZFP8DahVIY_um-4w2V_xMiJKhntI5_hGNbzvQqcyLfcsEiMHNmg4bgPJM08S8ovNPmQbGK/s400/Peace+Plan+%23+6.jpg)
Rick Richman
Contentions/Commentary
08 April '10
Asked about the Washington Post story in which it was reported that the administration is considering its own Middle East peace plan, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley issued a non-denial/denial yesterday, in which the operative words were “at this point”:
I would steer you away from the idea that we are — we’re going to try to, at this point, impose a particular view on the parties … our focus right now is getting them into the proximity talks, into negotiations, and then we’ll see what happens after that. [Emphasis added]
The “peace process” has not suffered from an insufficient number of plans. In the past decade, we have had five of them: (1) the Israeli two-state plan presented at Camp David in July 2000 — rejected by the Palestinians; (2) the Clinton Parameters presented in December 2000 — rejected by the Palestinians; (3) the 2003 Roadmap, calling for the dismantlement of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups as Phase I — ignored by the Palestinians; (4) the 2005 Gaza disengagement, giving the Palestinians a Judenrein Gaza to start their state — which produced a rocket war on Israeli civilians; and (5) the 2007-08 Annapolis Process, a plan for year-long final-status negotiations resulting in still another Israeli offer of a state — rejected by the Palestinians.
Even a casual observer can spot the problem here, and it is not the absence of a plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment