Morning:
6°c
The Middle East peace talks — that is, the latest instalment — have begun in a flurry of activity and anxious speculation about the body language of the two main participants, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestianian President Mahmoud Abbas. But the truth is that these talks will be a long-running story; they could take at least a year, given the sheer complexity of the issues. Optimists will take heart from the new impetus given to the peace process by the formidable combined focus of President Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
But there are serious grounds for concern about the chances of success. Any comparison between these talks and the Good Friday agreement, which concluded the Northern Ireland conflict, breaks down on the raw fact that one of the chief parties is absent. Holding discussions between Israelis and Palestinians in the absence of Hamas, the elected government of Gaza but repudiated by Western governments as a terrorist organisation, is a partial endeavour. Has Mr Abbas the authority to broker this deal?
A preliminary peace process between the Palestinian factions would have been a useful precursor to talks with the Israelis. Hamas may not be able to make peace but it can disrupt the process: it showed as much by shooting four Israeli settlers this week. But all Palestinians will have difficulties with the prospect that they might have to renounce for good any right of return to homes in Israel.
The Israelis, for their part, placed the talks in jeopardy at the start by announcing that they do not intend to renew the temporary ban on illegal settlements in the occupied territories. This may be simply a negotiating gambit but it ignores the reality that giving up the settlements is a necessary precursor for any agreement.
Then there is the question of Jerusalem: both sides would like it for their capital. The truth is that this city is sacred to three faiths and two peoples.
It is positive that President Obama is engaging with this thorniest of problems: he is in this for the long haul. He will need to be.
Patients first
Ever since the misjudged contract that the former Health Secretary John Reid negotiated with doctors in 2004, the quality of out-of-hours medical care has been patchy. But the plan by north London NHS trusts to opt to use a private contractor, Harmoni, for those services rather than a not-for-profit provider, Camidoc, may make things worse. Doctors writing to this paper say that the switch, on financial grounds, to a private provider could mean doctors are under-equipped, or replaced by nurses or individuals unfamiliar with the local community.
The interests of patients, which have all too often lagged behind those of medics, are not obviously well served by this change. The Government is attempting radical reform of the NHS by giving more power to local GPs. It's hard to see how this move squares with the spirit of that reform, or with the principle that patients come first.
Hague's strengths
The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has tried to scotch rumours about his private life with a statement about the strength of his marriage. Yet it seems inescapable that Mr Hague has been, at the least, wanting in common sense in the way he has behaved. For all that, he is an intelligent and able Foreign Secretary and a fine parliamentarian. In the end, that's what counts.
Reader views (3)
Hi
There is a mistake in your patients first comment. John Reid was SoS when the GP contract was introduced. However it was his predecessor Alan Milburn who negotiated it.
- Niall Smith, Ealing, 04/09/2010 22:13
Report abuse
Hi
There is a mistake in your patients first comment. John Reid was the health secretary when the GP contract was introduced. However, it was negotiated by his predecessor Alan Milburn.
- Niall Smith, Ealing, 04/09/2010 22:11
Report abuse
The settlements are not illegal and Jerusalem is sacred only to Judaism and Christianity. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran
- John Smith, London, 02/09/2010 17:04
Report abuse
