The audience being targeted by the author in the article includes the politicians in Washington and in the Arab capitals. The article by the authors proves their credibility as it is not founded on their personal interests or opinions but on information they gathered while in their professional positions and on their experiences as negotiators in the two countries. Dennis Ross was President Clinton’s Middle East peace negotiator between the year 2009 to 2011 in addition to being President Obama’s special assistant for the Middle East and South Asia. David Makovsky was at one time a part of the Secretary of State’s negotiating team in the Israeli-Palestinian talks between the years 2013 to 2014.
The authors claim with the rise of Islam nation issues for instance the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Egypt’s battle with radical Islamic groups the attention has been drawn from the tense situation between Israel and Palestinia which is boiling up to break the peace agreement in the process of being initiated. The authors mention the fact that in the past five months prior to the article, more than 100 Palestinians had carried out direct attacks against Israeli nationalists. Furthermore, the divisions between the Palestinian people and the unreliability and poor reputation of their leaders in guiding or unifying them, the issue between the two nations seems unlikely to be resolved soon. Also, the government of the Israelis which is too strong handed and not fully invested in the peace process makes the peace process more delicate and crucial. It is for these reasons that the authors feel more attention needs to be paid to the situation between the two nations to preserve the tranquility as the chances will fade quickly due to the leadership succession disputes the Palestinian nation is likely to face in the near future.
The authors show the weakness the American government has had which has been in stalling the agreement process. Given the current stalled state Palestinia is in, the most urgent thing for the U.S government should be to diffuse the tension between the two nations by restoring the possibility and hope of the people to reach an agreement and change the current state of affairs. However, the Obama administration has been more a hurdle that a solution treating all settlement agreements reached or suggested as unacceptable dismissing and undermining the orders of the president where he went forth to state not all peace agreements are equal and hence distinctions are a requirement to find the best solution for the people even if it is not necessarily what they as negotiators would like. Their indifference and indecision has only encouraged the Israeli to disregard the Palestinians and thus president Obama’s approach. However, the authors argue that the U.S government has a chance to turn things around if willing by offering the Israelis something in return for their cooperation for instance the promise to veto any resolution on settlements believed to be detrimental to the Israelis at the U.N Security Council. The U.S government could also agree not to present to the council their own individual resolutions intended or they perceive has the ability to solve the conflict. Lastly, the president could pledge to push both European and Arab nations to stand against Palestinian efforts to normalize Israeli- Palestine contacts as to the Israelis that would be against their terms of agreement. All these measures would go a long way in bridging the barrier between the two nations as Israel would also come to the table and agree to terms. However, despite the advantages and possibilities America and its government are moving at a sluggish pace to actualize them and give hope to all citizens involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment