A peace conference for friends only by P. Edward Haley. Haley writes:
Public opinion in Israel is complex, not simple, and Israeli citizens are far ahead of their politicians in their willingness to exchange land for peace. But Israel's system of proportional representation paralyzes diplomacy by handing control over major initiatives to the most militant and narrow members of its perennial coalitions. Nothing in recent developments suggests that this situation has changed in any significant way. ...The latter is a refernce to the exclusion of Hamas, which has obviously become a significant political player, without whom it's unlikely that a permanent peace can be secured. Haley also refers to the anti-Iran agenda at play in the Annapolis conference.
A friends-only peace conference is not just a contradiction, it is an illusion. We make peace with our enemies, not our friends, as Yitzhak Rabin said.
It's time to talk about Israel's nukes, and ours, too by Lew Butler. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East cannot be stopped by the US invading countries and replacing their governments and turning them into civil war battlegrounds as the Cheney-Bush administration did in Iraq. It will require a permanent peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. And it will require Israel to commit itself to observe strict nonproliferation limits itself.
Former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy is discussing the peace conference at his Prospects for Peace blog.
One of the key problems is that any meaningful peace settlement will involve at least the passive cooperation of Iran and Syria, neither of which is likely to be enthusiastic about a peace settlement that doesn't include some kind of American assurance that "regime change" will not be American policy toward their countries.
Laura Rozen discusses the Iran factor in The Elephant in Annapolis' Living Room Mother Jones Online 11/29/07.
Robert Fisk, who lives in Beirut, is very skeptical about the promise of the Annapolis Conference: A different venue, but the pious claims and promises are the same Independent 11/29/07:
Reading the speeches – especially the joint document – it seems like an exercise in self-delusion. The Middle East is currently a hell disaster and the President of the United States thinks he is going to produce the crown jewels from a cabinet and forget Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran – and Pakistan, for that matter. The worst element of the whole Annapolis shindig is that once again millions of people across the Middle East – Muslims, Jews and Christians – will believe all this and will then turn – after its failure – with fury on their antagonists for breaking these agreements.
For more than two years, the Saudis have been offering Israel security and recognition by Arab states in return for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories. What was wrong with that? Mr Olmert promised that "negotiations will address all the issues which thus far has been evaded". Yet the phrase "withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories" simply doesn't exist in the text.
Like most people who live in the Middle East, I would like to enjoy these dreams and believe they are true. But they are not. Wait for the end of 2008.
Tags: annapolis conference, israel
No comments:
Post a Comment