Brian Hennessy Philadelphia, PA October 22 1997 Philadelphia Inquirer, Letters EditorTo the editor:
The wisest man who ever lived, King Solomon, wrote that, "Differing weights and differing measures are both an abomination to the Lord."
I was reminded of that proverb after reading Peter Slevin's column (10/12/97) where he claims the Oslo accords are "fraying" because both sides are wrangling over "commas and subclauses." He argues the accords are simply "too vague" and often "not precise" enough to exact strict legal compliance. In devaluing the accords as a binding agreement, he reminds us they were just supposed to be the first step in a getting-to-know-ya-trust-ya kind of thing. Then to demonstrate how both sides have engaged in this needless "lawyerly" exercise he takes a number of Israel's complaints (which are made to sound whiney and trivial) and counterbalances them with a number of Palestinian complaints (which sound serious and legitimate). His point is both parties should quit their nit-picking and get back to the Peace Process.
However Mr. Slevin has led us to this false conclusion by using differing weights and measures.
The Israeli complaints, you see, all focus on real and flagrant Palestinian violations of the accords (such as the still unamended Palestinian Covenant calling for Israel's destruction, the failure to crackdown on terrorism, refusal to extradite known murders and terrorists, etc.). While the Palestinian complaints relate only to Israeli activities not dealt with in the accords (the Har Homa housing project, opening the archaeological tunnel entrance, clampdowns on travel following terrorist attacks, etc.)
To Mr. Slevin's mind, however, this key distinction can be brushed aside by subscribing to a "wider interpretation of Oslo." On this new scale of measurement anything Israel does that violates "the spirit" of the process is equivalent to any and all Palestinian violations of the actual written accords.
If one of the purposes for hammering out the accords was to build trust and confidence between the two parties, than clearly the only way to accomplish those goals is to honor the signed agreements. If one party won't even do that, what does it matter to talk about "wider interpretations" and "the spirit" of the agreement.
Mr. Slevin's scales are as unacceptable in evaluating Oslo as they would be in any supermarket produce department.
Sincerely, Brian Hennessy
Back to Home Page