What now that the peace process has failed?

Jennifer Rubin
Washington Post
21 December '10

David Aaron Miller, a lapsed peace processor, back in April decried the "false religion" of an activity that brings no peace, and isn't likely to for a long time. He was right then, and has reason to repeat the admonition. He writes in Foreign Policy:

A faltering, struggling peace process with some hope is far better than a failed one that leaves everyone hopeless -- and without a fallback option. When the time comes for big American moves (and, sadly, it will come given the Israeli and Palestinian lack of ownership over their own process), Obama should pay careful attention to the lessons and circumstances of the last big American effort to resolve the core issues.

Miller lists a number of falsehoods that were the basis for Obama's peace process optimism:

First, the parties were "this close" to an accord at the last Camp David, they will say, thumb and first finger almost touching. Second, that a tremendous amount of work has been done in the past 10 years by Israelis and Palestinians on the core issues which have brought the parties closer than they've ever been. Third, that everyone knows the broad outlines of an agreement. And, fourth, that trying and failing is better than not having tried at all.

(Read full "What now that the peace process has failed?")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.