Posted on 11/15/2005 3:14:06 PM PST by Pikamax
Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2005 How Rice Won a Mideast Deal Behind the scenes of the Secretary of State's all-nighter to open Palestinian border crossings By ELAINE SHANNON/JERUSALEM
When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived at Palestinian Authority headquarters in Ramallah Monday morning, Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayad knew it was her 51st birthday. He said he had a present that wouldn't exceed the government gift limit. He reached into a brown paper supermarket bag and pulled out a shiny green bell pepper.
“These are really good,” Fayyad said. “These are not quite ready yet. In two more weeks they'll be ready for export. If we succeed, they'll be exported. And that will mean a lot to a bunch of farmers.”
Fayad didn't need to spell out the rest. Getting the pepper crop to market may have been as important for the Secretary of State as it was for Palestinian farmers: She considers a stable, self-sustaining Palestinian economy a cornerstone of the prospects for achieving peace via Palestinian statehood, and until other industries took root, Gaza's harvest would be a key component of the local economy.
Two weeks earlier, Rice had been warned by James Wolfensohn, the former World Bank chief sent by the U.S. and its allies as a special envoy to help reboot the Palestinian economy, that Gaza's harvest, which was almost due, would be likely to rot in warehouses. That was because Israel, which controls all access points into the Palestinian territories even after withdrawing from Gaza, and the Palestinian authority had been unable to reach an agreement that would let inhabitants of the territories travel and trade. The two sides were inches from a deal, Wolfensohn said, but were hung up on details.
"We need to try to close it," Wolfensohn had urged Rice. "If you're the Secretary of State of the United States, I would have to say there's a little more clout associated with that. And therefore, to push it over the edge one need not envoys but Secretaries of State."
Rice agreed. The Secretary of State, a diehard Cleveland Browns fan, put it this way: "Sometimes the last yard is the hardest." Also, she said, details weren't trivial: It wasn't unreasonable for Israelis to be obsessed with security, nor for Palestinians to be equally prickly about sovereignty and independence.
When she joined the talks, Israel was insisting that its own security personnel continue to screen the gateways, particularly the currently closed Rafah crossing linking Gaza to Egypt. The Israelis wanted to post surveillance cameras at the crossing to screen for suspicious individuals, weapons and even large sums of cash that could finance terror cells. But the Palestinians balked, arguing that this amounted to occupation by proxy
Wolfensohn had proposed to break the deadlock by having European personnel police the Rafah crossing, but the Israelis still insisted on access to the surveillance camera video feeds and computer data streams at the crossing. Also, the Palestinians wanted to have final authority. The Palestinians also complained the harvest couldn't wait for the months it would take to comply with Israeli demands that they install state-of-the-art scanners to screen trucks. So Wolfensohn threatened to walk, leaving the two sides, as he recounted over the weekend, to "blow each other up."
On Monday, Rice met with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as well as with other senior officials, and also with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, pressing both sides to find the "will and creativity" to open not only Rafah but all the gateways in and out of Gaza and the West Bank.
As the odds on achieving a deal fluctuated all day, Rice's stubborn side kicked into high gear. "I'm not going to leave here until we get an agreement," she told an aide. She decided to delay her departure for Asia and return to Jerusalem after paying a condolence call on Jordan's King Abdullah in response to the Amman terror attacks.
When she returned from Jordan around 10 p.m., success was far from certain. "It will take all the power of the United States to push this one," said a Palestinian official.
But Rice was, says a State Department negotiator, “totally relentless.” She deployed her full arsenal of pesuasive techniques alternating between charm, relentless badgering and the intimidating suggestion that the most trusted advisor of the most powerful leader in the world was not going to leave town until she got what she came for. "When she focuses on something," says a U.S. official present, "she will use whatever it takes."
She gathered with other U.S. diplomats and Palestinian representatives in her suite for intensive talks over three hours, using a secure laptop to make line-by-line changes in a draft "agreement on movement and access." A top-level Israeli team arrived at her hotel about 1 a.m., producing a round of "elevator diplomacy" between Israeli and Palestinian delegations ensconced on different floors of the hotel. While she waited for one group to go and the next to arrive, Rice, full of nervous energy, paced the hall, popping in on junior staffers as they typed or proof-read. “Condi never got tired, never lost her edge or here sense of humor,” says a State Department negotiator. By 4:30 am the parties had agreed in principle. Rice allowed herself a two-hour nap, then went back into meetings until the six-page agreement was ready for release, shortly after 10 a.m.
The document commits Israel to permit the immediate export of the pepper crop and the rest of the Gaza harvest "on an urgent basis." By Dec. 15, Israel agreed, Israeli border authorities would process 150 export trucks a day through the Karni commercial crossing into their territory, and by the end of next year, that number would increase to 400 trucks a day. Israel also agreed to allow the movement of bus convoys between Gaza and the West Bank starting Dec. 15, allowing travel between Palestinian territories physically separated by Israel.
Israel agreed to allow the Palestinians to begin building a seaport and not to interfere with its operation. The document also committed the sides to serious talks on the construction of a Palestinian airport.
The security-sovereignty deadlock was resolved in a compromise in which the Israelis agreed to cede responsibility for camera surveillance and watch-list screening at Rafah to European personnel, while the Palestinians accepted that the Europeans would have final authority to order extra searches and computer checks on people and vehicles traveling from Egypt to Gaza.
Condi Rice put her reputation on the line for this mission and, for the moment, it appears to have paid off. “That we could get this done opens an international passage for the Palestinians, the first time since 1967,” says a State Department official. “For 38 years, Israel has controlled entry and egress for every Palestinian in the territories. And now they get to do it themselves, approximately 60 days after the Israelis departed Gaza.”
The Americans didn't get everything they asked for. “But we got a lot,” the official says. “What we wanted to do here is prove that things could be put together.”
The Secretary of State eschewed terms such as "breakthrough," warning that the test of the deal lay in its implementation. She has asked Wolfensohn to monitor progress and report to her every two weeks, vowing to return if necessary. "I think there's a chance," she said cautiously, "that if we can get through what were issues about how Gaza is going to operate, perhaps we can return to the bigger issues"
Rice's all-nighter demonstrated the extent of hands-on diplomatic effort required to get the two parties to achieve what she conceded was just one step towards the goal of establishing a Palestinian state that can live in harmony with its Israeli neighbor. Once the drama of its 13th hour surprise ending fades, the episode may be a sobering reminder of how long and arduous the journey remains — and of how much more may be required of the Bush administration and its successors if progress is to be sustained.
Isn't that pictured a little doctored? Or is it just late, and I'm missing the point.
Wikipedia is hardly reputable. They are simply posting statistics from advocacy articles. And that is assumiong that the author lacks a bias.
I take it you're referring to Wahibbism. My thoughts are that if there had not been the polarizing focus on the Zionists, and they had to watch as Turkey, Iran, and the rest of the world passed them by, then they would likely have withered.
Furthermore, Islam and Judaism/Christianity do not share the same root.
According to the histories I've read, Islam also believes Abraham was the father of their people. On the boards I've visited they talk of the ten commandments and other references to the Old Testament (Torah).
May I suggest that you read the Koran and Hadiths before commenting on Muslim intentions?
I'm working on it. However, even after reading them, I would hardly be able to comment on "Muslim intentions" since there are quite a few of them. It may surprise you to find out that not all Jews will agree with you about "Jewish intentions".
Furthermore, not all forces poised against Israel are relgious. They are politcal as well. The PLO isn't a religious organization. It was a political one. Nasser fought in the name of Pan-Arabism... not in the name of Islam... as did Sadat... as did Saddam...
Radicalism is a name that the West has given to the terrorists. But they aren't radical. They are behaving as Islam behaved until the rise of the European nation states stopped the invasion of Islam into Europe. Now, they have the means to begin to exert Islam's reach once more. Again...not radical... normal.
Second... The issue between Islam/Judaism/Christianity is not Abraham and the Old Testament. It is Jesus Christ. He is the elephant in the room that people won't talk about. If a religion denies that, and Islam is very pointed in rejecting the deity of Christ...then those religions aren't related.
This in an unbridgeable gulf... and Islam realizes it and so does Christianity.
The twice-weekly HonestReporting.com bulletins remind us how anti-Israel is the world's media, just as it is anti-American.
The democracy gambit is the boldest geopolitical move imaginable. And more feared by Assad and Khamenei and Baboon Ahmadinejad than shock and awe.
And it just makes Ted Kennedy drink more, too.
Cultural conflicts loom large today. The US, and western institutions like the UN and other major international governance organizations and NGO's are forms of cultural dominance that is risible to some extent for many countries. Zionism has its own place as an irritant in the ME, and an exasperation for some western powers. It simply cannot be dismissed or explained away. Islam is rising as a bond between very disparate political entities because of the two phenomena -- cultural dominance and Zionism. Wealth is pursued both for cultural continuity and to pay for a place at the table, or on the battlefield. It could very easily get even uglier than it is now.
Christ is not recognized except as a wayward or apostate Rabbi by Judaism. Christ is recognized as a Prophet by Islam. Those are very general "blanket" statements. Both religions have adherents that recognize the value of Christ's teachings. I have personally met more Muslims than Jews who were interested in the teachings of Christ. They just don't believe in the tripartite God. I believe that it is better to allow for differences, and acknowledge similarities in religions; makes it easier to live together.
Islam, at its root and by its definition is political religion designed to be expanded by warfare. It wasn't about "salvation". It was about conquest. Mohammed made that clear his deeds and actions.
You are trying to use one to justify the other as if Justinian somehow makes it okay for Mohammed. You don't use that technique with your children, do you?
Islam today is still trying to expand by violence. Israel has nothing to do with that... the Qu'ran does. I don't care how irritating Zionism is to the world... it is not the reason for radical Islam. Stop blaming the victim. Look at what Islam teaches... and see that it doesn't need Israel to rationalize or root its violence.
I understand that how Judaism recognizes Jesus. I am also aware of how Islam recognizes Him. The issues isn't whether Jesus is a Prophet. The issue is whether or not He is the Son of God. Islam says no. Judaism says no. Christianity says yes. Jesus is the great divider. He alone makes these religions diametrically opposed to one another...
I said nothing of the sort. I layed out some history. Good night.
The subject of the paragraph is expansion (the polite way of putting it...)
Your comment: Some say that Justinian set the example for Mohammed to follow some 300 years later...
Seems to me that you are justifying Mohammed by Justinian...
Good night to you too...
Almost overnight, Rice has gone from potential Presidential timber to just another Islamophilic western politician with no brains, no guts, and no sense of history.
She won her little "settlement" by selling Israel down the river.
The current administration just LOVES Islamics and illegal Mexicans.
I guess their idea of the perfect citizen is a Mexican who turns Muslim and sneaks across our border.
I'd like to answer but I don't understand your question.
As everyone can see, even with ample opportunity, you have not even attempted to defend your defamation of me. That would be impossible as everyone has eyes, is literate and recognizes that what you wrote were unashamed obvious lies.
But you have continued to defame Israel with similarly obvious lies.
You have proven to be nothing but an Arab Propagandist, a type familiar to many here. Someone that should be recognized by all on whatever thread you appear.
What provoked the Arabs to attack the Jews in Hebron in 1846?
What provoked the Arabs to attack the Jews in Safed in 1834?
XS> As she gives away more of G-d's land to the evil ones,
we will have more tornadoes killing more Americans.
c253>That's not true...
The land is not contigent(sic) on whether the American Secretary of State negotiates with the Israeli government.
According to the Bible... the land is contingent on Israel's obedience to the Law of God...
One does not have to do with the other...
Number one: the land is G-d's Land.
Number two: G-d has re-gathered the twelve tribes into His Land.
Number three: they will be gathered as dry bones at first.
Number four: When they will say:
Matthew 23:39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say,
'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" [Psalm 118:26]
Barukh haba b'Shem Adonai
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord
Y'shua HaMashiach
then they will live in the land G-d gave them in peace but not before.
b'shem Y'shua
What provoked them to murder in 1846 and 1834?
You certainly do have an interesting view of things. It really does sound like saying a girl deserves rape because she looks too pretty.
What would a debate about Israel (or Christianity) be without all the old moral equivalence canards? Got to have that moral equivalency, whether it makes any historical sense or not.
First of all, I'm not one of the "It's Bush's Fault!" crowd. I voted for Bush - 4 times, and rather enthusiastically each time. I'd happily do so again if it were possible, because I think that the man is a good President with a good moral compass. However, as is the case with any other politician, I reserve the right to disagree on any individual policy position he has, and to complain about it in public forums like FR (obviously with the hope of swaying others, who will sway yet others, etc., until maybe the policy can be changed). I hope that you don't have a problem with that.
Specifically, when it comes to his policy regarding how Israel deals with avowed terrorists that want only the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews, I disagree with Bush. Bush demands of Israel, and follows up with pressure, things that we ourselves wouldn't even give a 2nd thought to doing. I simply ask that Bush acknowledge - with deeds, not just words - that Israel has the same right to defend itself against these nutjobs that we have, and that he not complain about it or pressure Israel to change its ways or policies when we would do the same thing. Would we (have we) ever give up territory to someone that we took it from who had attacked us from that territory and who was still a threat to us? Hell no, and we're right to do that - so why is it that we pressure Israel to do so?
As to Israel being a "sock puppet," sometimes they have no choice. We are, effectively, Israel's only ally. If they don't dance the way we want them to at least a fair amount of the time, then they'll begin to lose the goodwill of that ally (or at least of the President in office at the time). So, yes, to an extent Israel is a sock puppet - which I'm sure its leaders don't like, but that's reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.