“What struck one in reading Eichmann in Jerusalem . . .was the surging contempt with which she treated almost everyone and everything connected with the trial, the supreme assurance of the intellectual looking down upon those coarse Israelis.”
Memories of Hannah Arendt
The President Shouldn’t Make a Lame-Duck Bid to Renew the “Peace Process”
Responding to indications that President Obama might make a last-ditch, post-election effort to further the cause of Palestinian statehood, Alan Dershowitz writes:
Recently . . . several past and present administration officials have apparently advised the president to support, or at least not veto, the French resolution [to have the UN Security Council organize an international conference to force a two-state solution], as well as a one-sided Palestinian push to have the UN declare Israeli settlements illegal. . . .
Obama must realize that no lasting peace can be achieved in the remaining months of his presidency. . . . Our next president will undoubtedly have to wade into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process again. The new administration . . . should not be stuck with parameters bequeathed to it by a president desperate to secure a short-term foreign-policy “victory” that in the long term will make a resolution of the conflict more difficult to achieve.
If Obama feels that he must intrude in an effort to break the logjam before he leaves office, he should suggest that the current Israeli government offer proposals similar to those offered in 2000-2001 and 2008, and that this time the Palestinian leadership should accept them in face-to-face negotiations. But he should take no action (or inaction) that invites UN involvement in the peace process—involvement that would guarantee failure for any future president’s efforts to encourage a negotiated peace.