Annapolis: What Next ?
Writing about the Mideast Peace talks in the Wall Street Journal, Bernard Lewis, a zealot Zionist, said that if the Annapolis summit is about the size of Israel, we might achieve something, if it is about the existence of Israel then it is doomed from the time it begins. Nothing substantial has emerged from the Summit.
The right of the refugees to return to their land is rejected by Israel, the question of making Jerusalem, the capital of the proposed state of Palestine is un-welcomed by Zionists and Christian Zionists, the issue of tearing down settlements has unsettled many Israeli politicians, the demand to give unconditional recognition to the state of Israel is unacceptable to Palestinians close to Hamas, the idea of dismantling the nuclear arsenal of Israel was never an option and the defining of the borders of Israel was never brought up. Other important issues such as water, transportation and the so called security wall could not find any serious discussion among the participants. The White House, on the other hand was optimistic and hopeful that by the end of next year a significant deal will be made. It is with this optimism that President Bush wants to sell to the Arab and Muslim world. Being a born again Christian, it is hard to conceive that President Bush or his Christian right friends in the state Department or Pentagon would abandon the ideology of a greater Israel essential for the return of Jesus. It is unthinkable that the US leader who spends hours and hours discussing the Middle East prophecies with his colleagues and Christian right religious leaders would promote a peace deal that would recognize the presence of the so called antichrist amidst "the pious believers." The United States is not run on religious laws, but when it comes to the Middle East, President Bush appears more like a religious zealot eager to ensure that the will of God is done according to Biblical prophecies. So intense is his belief in his relations with Jesus, that he often attributes the chaos and killing in Iraq and elsewhere to God who reportedly instructed him to do what was necessary to bring the world to an end so that the pious Christians could be raised up in heaven.
Why then President Bush twisted the arms of many gulf leaders and greased the palm of others for the Annapolis conference. The answer is clear. Before he leaves the Oval office, the President wants to decimate the nuclear capabilities of Iran and if possible of Pakistan. Of the two countries, Pakistan can be dealt with easily as its leaders are effectively dependent on the US for their survival in their country. Iran is a tough nut to crack. The White House is fully aware that a unilateral attack would further destabilize the region impacting many Gulf countries. Without creating a broader coalition of the Middle Eastern countries, attacking Iran might become counter productive. The destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities is in the best interest of Israel as well as the monarchies of the Gulf. Israel genuinely fears that a nuclear Iran would constantly threaten its existence and the monarchs fear that the idea of a people propelled government as practiced in Iran would weaken their hold over their people. Both, Israel and the gulf rulers would gain something substantial from any campaign against Iran. Iran, on the other hand, is trying to provoke the US into some sort of military action in order to further bleed the US economically. Iranian leadership apparently believes that a prolonged recession in the US would lead to major disasters causing the US to lose its influence on the world. Iranians also believe that the majority of the Arab and Muslim world would rise in defiance of the US ultimately leading to upheaval and terror on US targets throughout the world.
What is obvious is that the Annapolis conference is a prelude to some other major events that might unfold in the near future. The conference could have become meaningful if the US had invited Hamas, something Israel would never accept. What they have failed to realize is that peace is built between two enemies and opponents by an honest broker. The Bush administration is not an honest broker and the enemies are still hateful to each other.
Topics: Foreign Policy, Occupation Channel: Opinion
Unfortunately, the differences between the 2 parties are irreconcilable. I wonder why they even talk to each other.
There is only one solution. Let the 2 parties (Palestinians and Isralies) slug it out; the winner takes all. If the Palestinians lose, they are forced to leave. If Jews lose, they have no place to go but into the ocean.
In my opinion, there is no viable solution for 2 parties to exist together, because both of them want to exist with each other (and other muslim countries don't want them to exist with each other). Moreover, Palestinians are mere a political football of the Arab and Muslim countries; without this issue, many of the muslim rulers will be out of power.