Editorial
Peace in the Middle East
Substance, not symbolism, is called for
THE peace process, or something like it, is once more moving in the Middle East. There are two ways of looking at it. The first and more improbable one is that Benjamin Netanyahu amd Mahmoud Abbas have suddenly discovered the joy that comes of good neighbourly relations. The second and more likely one is that the US administration of President Barack Obama now feels a new momentum toward a deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis is not only necessary but also possible.
That last bit, given the recent history of American diplomacy, sounds rather predictable. Every US president since Richard Nixon has usually opted to go for a push for peace in the Middle East given that a second term in the White House has generally been regarded as a lame duck affair. As for President Obama, the enthusiasm with which he dealt with Middle Eastern leaders at the beginning of his presidency in early 2009 has over the years been dampened by the realities on the ground. Or call them hurdles, given Israel's intransigence over the continued building of Jewish settlements on occupied Arab land.
Now that Secretary of State John Kerry has talked to Israeli and Palestinian leaders on his trip to the region, interest in fresh chances for peace takes centre stage once more, especially when both sides are likely to meet in Washington. Israel has agreed to free some long-serving Palestinian prisoners in its jails as a gesture of goodwill. That is a good beginning. But mere symbolism cannot be a substitute for substance. Both Obama and Kerry understand that.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments