Annapolis: Peace In Someone Else’s Time
After all the failed efforts at peace by parties with far greater claims to mandates, for lame-duck United States President George Bush to be climbing on the legacy bandwagon now with unpopular Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Rump Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas may seem like a colossal waste of everyone’s time.
In some ways it is, as demonstrated most recently by the failure of the two principal parties to agree on any kind of a joint statement ahead of Tuesday’s conference, billed as an effort to relaunch long-stagnant Mideast peace efforts and design a new way forward. That failure is not a huge matter. Peace conferences are not necessary between people who agree with each other. They take place between conflicted parties who might be interested in finding room for agreement.
But this conference, as a practical matter, may be less about agreement than division. Even if all those gathered at the table, to include a reluctant, photo-op resistant Saudi foreign minister, were to agree wholeheartedly to the status of Israeli settlements, the status of Jerusalem as a seat of political power and focus of religious devotion, to issues related to third- and fourth-generation Palestinian claims on land they abandoned or lost in battle, the conference would be as much about who is not there as it is about who is.
Hamas and Iran.
Both are outraged that this is happening, and both in the last few days have denounced it. As well they should. It poses a great danger to them, and that’s where Annapolis has the potential to move the prospects for Mideast peace forward.
With the Palestinian people in an active state of civil war, the idea of pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian peace at this time could be seen as absurd. Not a single rocket will be prevented from flying out of Gaza by words spoken or papers signed at Annapolis. The greater likelihood is that more will fly, and that Fatah members there will find themselves targeted for summary execution again. Here’s Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zoheri, quoted this weekend in Ha’aretz.
“Resistance to the Zionist enemy will intensify through the West Bank and Gaza, because Annapolis will expose the uselessness of the process and its destructiveness.”
With Iran actively supporting Islamic terrorism in Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq, the notion that any Zionist’s handshake with a Palestinian rival will resolve anything is ridiculous. Iran is outraged to find itself further isolated. Here’s Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Agence France Presse, quoted by the official IRNA news agency.
“The so-called conference… is of no benefit to the Palestinian people and has the aim of supporting the occupying Zionists.”
For all the warm and encouraging words we may hear out of Annapolis, the fact is that the Palestinian people are not ready for peace, and will not be until they eject the criminals and terrorists from their midst. Iran is not ready for peace and will not be until the Iranian people eject the criminals and terrorists from their midst.
Both will continue to threaten and attack Israel and in the case of Iran, moderate Arab powers elsewhere that thwart their will.
Nor is there a great likelihood that Israel and half of the Palestinian power structure will achieve complete resolution on some of the fundamental points that divide them. But Annapolis is not going to be about ending the Israel-Palestinian dispute.
What we see shaping up at Annapolis is just another step in a long war. It is an ongoing process of dividing and conquering, by the most insidious and ultimately the only meaningful leverage for peace in a war-torn world. The recognition of self-interest. Egypt and Jordan recognized it a long time ago. Egypt isn’t thrilled about this particular conference but knows better than to sit it out. Syria has dabbled with self-interest in the past, is treacherously and violently fickle, to Syria’s own detriment. Now some of the Palestinian people are fortunate enough to be living under leadership that has recognized their self-interest.
There is the side benefit that, despite the unpopularity of America’s recent engagements in the Middle East and perceptions that the United States is weakened, the role of the United States as the ultimate power broker in the world, even with the widely despised and allegedly weakened George Bush at the helm, is underscored again.
But the best promise of Annapolis is that it could see the formalizing of the estrangement of Hamas, initiated by the summer’s revolting Palestinian-on-Palestinian violence, and the formal recognition by more Arab states that Palestinian moderates and Israel are the only legitimate players. The prospects of the return of the Golan could drive a significant wedge between terrorism-supporting Syria and Iran, whose isolation is intensified. The most intransigent parties to this conflict and their people will be provided with an opportunity to recognize their self-interest, if only incrementally.
Annapolis will not mean peace in our time. But it could be a meaningful step toward peace in someone else’s time.
Jules Crittenden blogs at Forward Movement.
Thank you for the no spin commentary. I think I can buy that.
Excellent post, Jules. Methinks this is also an opportunity for us to quietly forge / solidify agreements for the time we move against Iran, such as how to provide for China’s oil needs.
Syria’s presence is astonishing, when you think about it, given that Israel just blew up an apparently key Syrian asset. Perhaps there will be a message for Syria to carry back to Iran.
In a sense, I agree that this is all a response to the power of Hamas. But I also know that the Hamas/Iranian response may be more than the Annapolis participants expect, in much the same way the Iraq terrorism was more than the US expected. Ever since Hamas took over Gaza, the US has been doing everything to keep Hamas from taking the West Bank. I don’t think this meeting will stop what I consider to be that eventuality.
It’s also important to keep in mind the roots of this entire worldwide conflict as exemplified by Saudi Arabia–who let 1500 terrorist free because they promised not to attack Saudi Arabia. Well they’re going to attack something somewhere–and that is what this war is about. There is nothing at Annapolis that even begins to address what is essentially the globalization of a Saudi civil war.
I have been hearing about Middle East peace negotiations since I was a child. I am now 54. Every president has tried it and every president has failed. I still remember Yassar Arrafat and Menachem Begin shaking hands in front of a smiling Jimmy Carter. Same type of thing with Bill Clinton. Again failed. Now Bush trys it. It seems that Presidents have to at least try this type of thing so they can say they gave it a shot. No one can untangle the convoluted web of Middle Eastern politics. But they can leave office feeling good about themselves for trying. Middle East rhymes with No Peace.
This conference does constitute de facto recognition of Israel … and that’s more than a step in the right direction.
Art,
The Saudis won’t even shake hands with the Jews. They can’t even step that far. Didn’t you read that? A Saudi minister caught hell for shaking hands with Tzippi Livnat, because, you know, Jews are dirty. There will be no shaking of hands. No touchy Jews. Do not confuse this for a Neil Armstrong moment of diplomacy.
Josh, you should check the memory banks again as it was Sadat and Begin (no Arafat in this photo op) shaking hands beneath Carter’s smirk, may his name be forgotten forever.
P. Ami,
You are right. It was Sadat and Begin. Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin were shaking hands beneath Bill Clinton’s triumphant smile after signing yet another bogus Mid-East peace accord.
I guess I got my Nobel Peace Prize winners and Presidents mixed up.
Josh,
You’re still miles ahead of the Nobel Committee itself.
Annapolis is a joke, and a dangerous joke at that. Olmert is looked at by most Israelis as totally illegitimate (and stupid) and will not be able to carry out any policies (for the further weakening of Israel and hastening its demise) when he gets back to Israel. Israelis have had enough of this stupidity, finally.
“Palestinian moderates” … what a joke. But it’s nice that so many idiots seem to think that forming 2 new arab states (as we all know that the West Bank and Gaza will NOT end up being a single state) is good for the world. You people don’t understand arab culture, human nature or simple logic.
You’ll feel very good after Israel is destroyed and you can cry a good cry and babble about how you didn’t see it coming … Morons.
And the idea that Israel needs to be sacrificed to get arabs together against Iran is a total joke. The arabs hate iran and will hate iran regardless of whatever anyone else does – that’s the whole Sunni/Shiite thing. Your fantasy of Hamas and Iran being hurt by Annapolis is beyond laughable. You haven’t paid much attention to Iranian or Hamas actions over the past few years, I guess.
When will people finally stop trying to do the same thing over and over and over in the middle east – especially when we have all seen the results each time? When they get some brains, I guess …
Pathetic. This reminds me of the people who scream bloody murder when someone “denies the holocaust” but have no problem with current policies that work towards a new holocaust. Mind numbing, it is.
It was nice, though, that Bush let Olmert take Tel Aviv off the table, though. Thank heavens for small favors ….
The idiocy on display at Annapolis, and among those fools who try to argue its utility, is just astounding.
Sorry about the tone of my previous post, but the idea that someone wouldn’t know who is “for peace”, and who isn’t, by now is just maddening. Hasn’t this exact same sentiment – “We’ll see who is for peace” – been uttered by so many so many times only to be ignored and forgotten? How many more times will it take until people understand the silliness of the proposition. No one stops Palestinians from dealing with Israel. Why is there even a pretense left? If the Palestinians wanted peace then they would have it. It is silly to think otherwise.
I guess it’s the same as saying that the Israelis and the Palestinians are “negotiating”, when the Palestinians have nothing to negotiate with …