Part Two: “Israel, Palestine, Crab Cakes”

By Roger Cohen
Published: November 19, 2007

1. “I would like to invest hope in the Annapolis Middle East peace

conference, or meeting, or parley, or whatever the term is… Hope is
a shrinking refuge. Annapolis looks like a looming photo-op. Even
photo-up-plus would be something at this stage.” Basically, there’s
very little hope for the Annapolis meeting, although much depends
on it as a first step toward reconciliation in the Middle East.
2.

3. I thought originally that he was being sarcastic, but now I think he

actually is more pessimistic-but-trying-to-look-on-the-bright-side. On
the second page, the pessimism is a little less pronounced.
4. In the third paragraph, Cohen compares the projected image of
strength of the Israeli prime minister, our President, and the
Palestinian president, to the effect that the former two are “forlorn”
and the latter, “the only man who makes both these leaders look
powerful.” In the last paragraph, he likens the probable outcome of
the Annapolis meeting to a photo-op – an opportunity to take some
pictures of these leaders together, but not an opportunity for those
leaders to actually get something done.
5. I still don’t see any figurative language…
6. Cohen repeats the idea of wanting to be hopeful despite the
overwhelming sense of despair throughout the whole piece, (“I
would like to invest hope in…I’d like to feel hopeful…I don’t want to
despair…Hopelessness is no option…I doubt…I wonder…despair is a
nonstarter…Hope is a shrinking refuge”) Words of doubt like
perhaps, although, and even when are repeated, also.
7. Two statements in the piece seem unfounded:
a. “So what if Annapolis looks like Rice’s transparent, last-gasp
bid for a “legacy achievement”?” – While this idea is
plausibly correct, no evidence is supplied in this article to
provide support for this idea.
b. “More than 200,000 Israeli settlers, the jihadist infiltration of
the conflict and the deep split in the Palestinian movement
have created physical and mental barriers even a strong
U.S. president would find hard to shift. Bush is weak.” – The
second sentence is offered as a “but” statement, but it is
 not directly supported or even addressed here. Cohen
assumes or hopes that a reader can think of proof for this.
8.

9. The most effective part:

a. “I would like to invest hope in the Annapolis Middle East
peace conference, or meeting, or parley, or whatever the
term is. Really, I would. The 59-year battle for the same
land of Zionist and Palestinian national movements has not
been good for anyone.
I’d like to feel hopeful although no firm date has been set,
and it’s not clear who’s coming, and it’s six years too late,
and Israel has chosen to lure tourists for its 60th
anniversary next year with a photo of an Israeli “cowboy”
on a Golan Heights ranch, which hardly seems the ad
campaign of a country about to trade land for peace.”
b. I think this is the most effective part because it introduces
the topic, sets up the reader, and establishes the author’s
tone.
10.
Israel, Palestine, Crab Cakes
By Roger Cohen
Published: November 19, 2007

I would like to invest hope in the Annapolis Middle East peace

conference, or meeting, or parley, or whatever the term is. Really, I
would. The 59-year battle for the same land of Zionist and Palestinian
national movements has not been good for anyone.
I’d like to feel hopeful although no firm date has been set, and it’s
not clear who’s coming, and it’s six years too late, and Israel has
chosen to lure tourists for its 60th anniversary next year with a photo
of an Israeli “cowboy” on a Golan Heights ranch, which hardly seems
the ad campaign of a country about to trade land for peace.
I don’t want to despair although Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime
minister, is beset by criminal investigations, and President Bush is
forlorn, and the only man who makes both these leaders look powerful
is the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who controls only the
West Bank wing of his national movement.
Hopelessness is no option although the current “West Bank first”
strategy comes just two years after a “Gaza first” approach. This had
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declaring in 2005 how critical it
was to “seize the moment” — before the moment evaporated and
Hamas grabbed control of Gaza.
Remember all the faith placed in Gaza and its greenhouses, all the
talk of a “trial run” for Palestinian statehood after Israel’s withdrawal?
Remember the way Palestinian elections were talked up? It’s not good
to remember. There’s too much memory in the Middle East, too many
graves. They get in the way.
Eyes to the future, I refuse to allow the latest fighting in Gaza
between Hamas and Abbas’s Fatah to make me despondent, even
when Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader, tells me in a phone call that:
“Without unification of the West Bank and Gaza, Abbas cannot
represent the Palestinian side at Annapolis.”
Zahar, a doctor, predicts the get-together in Annapolis, Md., will be
“a unique example of failure.” He counters my inquiries about a Hamas
recognition of Israel with three questions:
“First, what is the border of Israel? And what happens to Jerusalem?
And what happens to Palestinian refugees in the camps?”
Here we go — the old conundrums. Hamas cannot be ignored
forever. But I console myself that the Annapolis meeting, tentatively
planned for Nov. 26, is not about a peace settlement. It is about setting
a framework for talks, defining principles, rallying regional support.
 Perhaps the Saudis, under heavy U.S. pressure, will show up,
although they are so risk-averse and have staked so much on
Palestinian unity, I doubt King Abdullah will. Perhaps the Syrians will
ignore Golan cowboy ads and appear, but I wonder. Perhaps fear of
Iran will lead Sunni Arab states to show public support for Israel.
Perhaps.
Still, despair is a nonstarter, even if a minister in Olmert’s
government is already voting for legislation to block any eventual
division of Jerusalem. So what if Annapolis looks like Rice’s transparent,
last-gasp bid for a “legacy achievement”?
What matters are the two peoples. But even basic principles are
problematic. One core demand of Olmert and his foreign minister, Tzipi
Livni, is for up-front Palestinian recognition of Israel “as a Jewish state.”
But Saeb Erekat, a moderate Palestinian negotiator, has said that
“Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel’s Jewish identity.”
Livni wants clarity on the Jewish character of Israel, which has a
large Arab minority, as quid pro quo for recognition of Palestine and as
insurance against mass Palestinian return.
She’s right to want this; she’s wrong to push for the principle now.
Why should Palestinians offer anything when the West Bank is a
shameful place offering a primer on colonialism and Israeli settlements
have grown almost unabated? Nascent Palestine is in pieces, invisible
behind a reassuring fence-wall.
While the Bush administration looked away, Israelis and Palestinians
lost sight of each other. Perhaps, in the end, the only way to stave off
hopelessness is to think that at least Annapolis will enable them to
commit to seeing each other more. They can set up working groups,
renounce violence, set deadlines.
All the “final-status issues” — Jerusalem, borders, refugees,
settlements, water and security — will have to be left for later. Even
protracted attempts to frame the principles for discussion of these
matters have failed.
“The best we can hope for is an agenda of conflict management and
not have illusions of conflict resolution,” said Shlomo Avineri, an Israeli
political scientist.
More than 200,000 Israeli settlers, the jihadist infiltration of the
conflict and the deep split in the Palestinian movement have created
physical and mental barriers even a strong U.S. president would find
hard to shift. Bush is weak.
Hope is a shrinking refuge. Annapolis looks like a looming photo-op.
Even photo-up-plus would be something at this stage.