Toronto Star | 25Jan2010 | Orest Slepokura
Save the peace
The Editor:
The January 25, 2010 editorial headlined "Save the peace" in the
Israeli daily Haaretz declaims: "The diplomatic stalemate and the
provocations by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government in East
Jerusalem harm not only the chance for peace in the future but also
past fruits of peace."
On the very same day in his column "One land with two narratives" Dow
Marmur insists: "At present, Israel seems willing to come to the
negotiating table. Even its current right-wing government has frozen
settlement expansion and is making other concessions."
Where Haaretz decries Netanyahu’s regime for “provocations” that
endanger the entire peace process, the rabbi lauds the same for making
timely “concessions” for the sake of peace. Who to believe? Obviously,
they can’t both be right.
When a portrayal of diplomatic reality bristles with such a howling
contradiction, it’s obvious one or the other is not telling us the
truth. There are no "two narratives" here.
Sincerely yours,
Orest Slepokura
Strathmore, Alta
c. Rabbi Dow Marmur
***********************************************************
Haaretz | 25Jan2010 | Editorial
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1144873.html
Save the peace
The diplomatic stalemate and the provocations by Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu's government in East Jerusalem harm not only the
chance for peace in the future but also past fruits of peace. Fifteen
years after the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan was signed, the
two countries are now deep in a crisis the government is doing nothing
to resolve.
As Barak Ravid reported yesterday in Haaretz, there is almost a
complete lack of communication between Netanyahu and King Abdullah II.
The situation is no better on the lower echelons: the Jordanians are
boycotting Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and hold few meetings
with senior Israeli officials. Joint economic projects between the two
countries are also on hold. Ties, if they exist at all, are only
related to sensitive security issues and water.
Jordan is more concerned than ever about increased Israeli pressure on
the Palestinians in the West Bank, which could undermine internal
stability in the Hashemite Kingdom. King Abdullah is therefore worried
about the absence of talks between Israel and the Palestinians, as well
as Israeli activities aimed at increasing the number of Jews living in
East Jerusalem -- where Jordan was promised special status at Islamic
holy sites according to the peace agreement.
The Jordanians do not trust Netanyahu, and hold his conduct during his
first term as prime minister against him, when he ordered the
assassination of senior Hamas official Khaled Meshal on their soil.
As opposed to Turkey, whose prime minister openly attacked Israel,
Jordan prefers to handle the crisis discretely and has made do with
diplomatic protests. But quiet on the media front does not mean the
seriousness of the situation may be dismissed or ignored.
Israel has always considered strong ties with Jordan as having supreme
strategic importance. Sacrificing these ties for the sake of the
Netanyahu government's harmful actions in East Jerusalem demonstrates a
severe deficiency in the management of foreign and security policy.
The prime minister must realize the diplomatic price Israel is paying
for his attempts to placate the right, stop provocations like the
"planting of the university center in Ariel" of which he so proudly
spoke yesterday, and place rehabilitating relations with Jordan at a
higher priority level.
His bureau's comment -- that Netanyahu would be happy to meet with the
king "whenever the need arises" -- shows dangerous indifference in light
of the erosion of Israel's status in the region, and gratuitous
arrogance toward a country whose friendship is essential.