WORLD & NATION —
Peace talks begin in the Middle East
September 10, 2010
By Alexandra Miller
Staff Writer
"By being here today, you each have taken an important
step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a
history we cannot change and moving toward a future of
peace and dignity that only you can create," said Hillary
Clinton, regarding the Sept. 2 peace talks between Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas in Washington, D.C.
The results thus far are encouraging. The two sides agreed
to meet in Egypt in two weeks following their meeting on
Sept. 2. They will meet again in Washington, D.C. on Sept.
26 to continue discussing the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian
refugees, Israeli settlements, and Israeli security.
Each issue is a potential obstacle for peace, each issue is
complicated by a history of conflict, hostility, and combat
and each issue becomes more desperate with every failed
attempt at peace.
"I think that both sides are fed-up, generations have
grown up with 'the conflict,'" said Benjamin Macdonald, a
senior who has traveled in the Middle East. "There are a lot
of things at play here, beyond the politics and land disputes
there are emotional issues that will take a lot of time to
tackle."
The issues are sensitive and complex, leaving tensions
high. For now, the world awaits tangible evidence that these
talks may produce results. Peace talks have been attempted
numerous times including the Camp David Accords in 1978,
the Oslo Accord in 1993, Camp David in 2000, and the Road
Map and Geneva accords, both in 2003. When questioned
why these accords failed. Rabbi Fred Guttman of Temple
Emmanuel in Greensboro was frank.
"We can sit here and say this is how Oslo was violated
by Palestinians or Israelis," said Guttman. "The majority
of violations of Oslo from my narratives were done by the
Palestinians. The Palestinians are going to say from their
narratives it was the Israelis."
Despite the long, complicated record of peace attempts.
President Barack Obama has stipulated that the peace talks
must be completed in one year. Resolving issues that have
plagued the Middle East for decades, in a mere 12 months,
seems unlikely to many.
"I do feel that the President's desire to wrap these up in
a year is unrealistic," said Guttman. "However, as long as
progress is being made, that deadline is irrelevant."
However, the short and strict single year may prove
to be advantageous. According to Associate Professor of
Political Science Ken Gilmore, this rigid goal will diminish
opportunities for those threatening the peace process.
SIS®
*
According to Max Carter, director
of the Friends Center/campus
ministry coordinator of Guilford, each
side may not be able to make the
sacrifices necessary to solidify a peace
agreement.
"Most people believe this can be
worked through, if there is compromise
on both sides," Carter said. "Both sides
will have to make tough decisions."
A justified skepticism exists for
many.
"I can understand why people are
less than optimistic about the peace
talks," said Gilmore. "I am cautiously
optimistic that something is going to
happen. (Everyone) may not get a
comprehensive deal or hit a homerun,
like a two- state solution. But I think
they can get a partial deal, and I think
that would be better than nothing."
Guttman remains skeptical, in large
part, because of extremists on both
sides.
"I am afraid of the people opposed
to peace talks that will commit violent
acts to undermine the peace process.,"
Guttman said. "(This includes) Hamas
and the ultra-right wing Israeli
settlers."
Currently, the peace talks appear
stable. Netanyahu did not turn his
back after four Israelis were murdered
by Hamas on Tuesday. Similarly,
Abbas condemned the murders and
did not walk away when Israeli settlers
began new construction. Though" still ’
fragile and in the earliest stages of
development, the peace discussions
are beginning to breathe.
Hopefully, the shared desire for
peace will outweigh entrenched
perspectives that have continued to
perpetuate a bloody status quo.
"I believe that both the Palestinian
and Israeli government leaders are people's future for any sort of solution to be obtainable "
going to have to put aside parts of their personal platforms The peace talks are just a step, but they are a step in the
and the platforms of the party they are representing," said right direction. "Palestinians just want a normal life " said
semor Kira Borman, a member of Hillel. "They will have Carter. "And Israelis do too. That's what may finally drive a
to focus purely on what is best for their people and their peace accord."
(Above) U.S. President Barack Obama walks with Israeli Prime Minister Benja
min Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas,
(Below) Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas with Secre
tary of State Hillary Clinton.
V
MHf
KENYA
New constitution aims to balance power, maintain stabibty
Continued from page I
have been endemic due to govern
ment corruption.
The changes and proposals out
lined in the document are the result
of a long campaign by Kenyan
President Mwai Kibaki and Prime
Minister Raila Odinga. Their cam
paign was focused on introducing
reforms in light of the highly con
tentious 2007 presidential election.
The election, which many
claimed was rigged in favor of
Kibaki, resulted in widespread
violence. The unrest shocked the
international community, consider
ing that Kenya has generally been
viewed as relatively stable com
pared to its East African neighbors.
According to Assistant Professor
of History Joy Coates, who special
izes in Kenyan studies, "Kenya has
a history of fraudulent elections,
but it has generally tried to be a
model for other African nations."
Since gaining its independence
from Britain in 1963, Kenya has
side-stepped many of the macabre
episodes that have affected neigh
boring countries like Uganda and
Rwanda.
However, in the past, citizens
and officials have viewed Kenyan
democracy with little respect.
Multi-party elections were
banned until 1994, and since then,
decision-making abilities have
remained highly monopolized by
the executive branch of govern
ment. Additionally, religious and
ethnic tensions between Kenya's
Christian majority and Muslim
minority and between the Kikuyu,
Luo, and other Kenyan tribes con
tinue to create divisions in the coun
try with political ramifications.
Amid the frustration and anger
that many Kenyans have felt since
the 2007 elections, there has been
a general desire to regain Kenya's
status as a model of stability.
Some feel the political leader
ship in Kenya has attempted to tap
into these feelings by proposing the
new constitution as a way to regain
the trust of Kenyans.
According to Coates, "Kenyans
had lost hope in their government,
and this constitution seems to be a
way to appease people."
M^y Kenyans felt that the 1963
constitution, a relic of the colonial
era, gave overreaching authority
to the presidency and did not suf
ficiently address issues of land
grabbing.
However, there remain contro
versial parts of the new constitution
which not all feel will help stabilize
Kenya.
Despite approved measures to
create more checks and balances,
certain clauses in the constitution
have provoked concerns about a
possible resurgence of religious ten
sions.
Some Christian leaders feel that
the provisions allowing the use of
Islamic courts are discriminatory.
Many in Kenya's evangelical com
munity also claim that tiie constitu
tion allows for loopholes in Kenya's
ban on abortions.
Evangelical voters provided
the base for the 33 percent voting
against the referendum.
While there is some apprehen
sion among certain groups in
Kenya, there is a general feeling of
optimism in the country, with hopes
that the new constitution will create
greater transparency in government
and allow for social and economic
mobility.
Several campaign posters
encouraging a "yes" vote featured
Obama's picture alongside those of
Kibaki and Odinga, suggesting that
the presence of a Kenyan-descent
president in the United States has
created a sense of solidarity within
the country, and inspired new hope
for positive change.
"Kenyans are justifiably proud
to have one of their people as the
president of the U.S.," Coates said.
In light of the genocide and
corruption that still plague other
countries in East Africa, there is a
sense of hope that Kenya's efforts to
work towards democracy will not
only improve the politick situation
there, but also act as a catalyst for
change in the region.