The biography of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is known to all. Her credentials are impressive to say the least, and her service alongside President George W. Bush has been persistent and loyal.
But as I watched her speak earlier this week, I asked myself what is the weight that Ms Rice gives her statements and what relation they bear to her diplomatic actions.
Rice spoke twice yesterday: At a joint press conference with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, and in a one-on-one interview with Channel 10's Chico Menashe. Very well spoken, almost amicable, and letting the fragility of her voice show, she said nothing we have not heard before. This fact is so radical, that it would not surprise me if her speech and interview could be reconstructed word for word from past statements she had made on the conflict in the Middle East.
"Our commitment to the Middle East process," "The parties must understand," "The war against terrorism," are only the most obvious examples.
On the other hand, the time of Ms Rice is very precious. She would not trouble herself across the Atlantic merely to voice in the ears of local leaders the same formulae they've heard before on the media along with ordinary citizens.
This means there is a gap here – between what is said on the media, and what we (assume) is said and done behind closed doors.
And in this gap the cold reality exists.
The Palestinians are wallowing in their anarchy, the Israelis are basking in their complacency, and neither will budge unless some extraneous force compels them to do so.
We all know that violence is not going to be made to vanish with a magic wand. We know that the true obstacle on the road to an agreement is a lack of resolve on the part of both Israeli and Palestinian leaders. As a highly intelligent diplomat, Rice knows this too, surely.
She also knows just as clearly, that by limiting the American involvement in the conflict to the monitoring of worthless gestures and pointless mid-tier deliberations, the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue will not leapfrog to the stage of genuine peace negotiations.
I do not understand then why she feels compelled to collaborate with this glass-wall policy. Why there needs to be a skyscraper of international diplomacy: With its tinted windows, it says nothing new because it does nothing new, yet no one is allowed to enter it and witness the vacuity.
Although her presidential candidacy is still pure speculation, Rice is inevitably eyeing the coveted top job. As such, maybe she needs a reminder of the suffragettes’ movement famous slogan.
Deeds, not words.
But as I watched her speak earlier this week, I asked myself what is the weight that Ms Rice gives her statements and what relation they bear to her diplomatic actions.
Rice spoke twice yesterday: At a joint press conference with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, and in a one-on-one interview with Channel 10's Chico Menashe. Very well spoken, almost amicable, and letting the fragility of her voice show, she said nothing we have not heard before. This fact is so radical, that it would not surprise me if her speech and interview could be reconstructed word for word from past statements she had made on the conflict in the Middle East.
"Our commitment to the Middle East process," "The parties must understand," "The war against terrorism," are only the most obvious examples.
On the other hand, the time of Ms Rice is very precious. She would not trouble herself across the Atlantic merely to voice in the ears of local leaders the same formulae they've heard before on the media along with ordinary citizens.
This means there is a gap here – between what is said on the media, and what we (assume) is said and done behind closed doors.
And in this gap the cold reality exists.
The Palestinians are wallowing in their anarchy, the Israelis are basking in their complacency, and neither will budge unless some extraneous force compels them to do so.
We all know that violence is not going to be made to vanish with a magic wand. We know that the true obstacle on the road to an agreement is a lack of resolve on the part of both Israeli and Palestinian leaders. As a highly intelligent diplomat, Rice knows this too, surely.
She also knows just as clearly, that by limiting the American involvement in the conflict to the monitoring of worthless gestures and pointless mid-tier deliberations, the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue will not leapfrog to the stage of genuine peace negotiations.
I do not understand then why she feels compelled to collaborate with this glass-wall policy. Why there needs to be a skyscraper of international diplomacy: With its tinted windows, it says nothing new because it does nothing new, yet no one is allowed to enter it and witness the vacuity.
Although her presidential candidacy is still pure speculation, Rice is inevitably eyeing the coveted top job. As such, maybe she needs a reminder of the suffragettes’ movement famous slogan.
Deeds, not words.
posted by Orr at 2:06 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home