All They Are Saying..Is Give Peace A Chance..?
Here is Palestine’s reaction to the Annapolis “Peace Summit”:
(Photo via Michelle who got it from Yahoo! News )
More worldwide protests at Snapped Shot.
The opening remarks from the POTUS:
President Bush said in remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday at the Annapolis conference that the time is right to relaunch Mideast peace talks because “a battle is under way for the future of the Middle East.”
Bush said it won’t be easy to achieve the goal of creating two states ” Israel and Palestine ” living side by side in peace after decades of conflict and bloodshed, yet he urged the two sides to work together for the sake of their people.“Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is the key to realizing their own, and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state,” Bush said in remarks released by the White House. “Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom, purpose and dignity. And such a state will help provide Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbors.”
After months of frantic diplomacy, top officials from more than 40 nations were converging on this historic state capital for what Bush said he hopes will launch of the first Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in seven years.
The world has changed significantly in the intervening seven years. Yasser Arafat died, and his movement has fractured into several pieces. The Israelis could only fight Hezbollah to a draw in the north. Hamas has conducted a coup and grabbed Gaza, effectively eliminating them politically in the West Bank, where Israel and the Palestinians are interwoven more intimately. Both Abbas and Olmert suffer from considerable political weakness, which makes them simultaneously less effective and more amenable to negotiation.
Arab nations face other challenges, too. The US intervention in Iraq has challenged the status quo of southwest Asia, but more significantly, the Iranian bid for nuclear hegemony has shuffled priorities for the primarily-Sunni nations at the summit. Israel is no longer their biggest worry, and the Palestinians matter even less than they did in 2000.
What about the Jewish Question?
Herewith some thoughts about tomorrow’s Annapolis peace conference, and the larger problem of how to approach the Israel-Palestine conflict. The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, “What is the conflict about?” There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.
If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.
If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist……
PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that’s not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.
And that’s my main problem with these peace talks. The people who organize them don’t seem to understand what experts tell us: that Arab leaders don’t call for peace at home, but for a ‘truce’ which will only last until Middle Eastern countries will be stronger than the Jewish nation-state.
What’s more, their diplomacy is nothing but another way of destroying Israel – which remains the goal today.
RCP:
The Arab states are now, ironically, changing their tune. John Burgess blogs at Crossroads Arabia on what Saudi Arabia hopes will come out of Annapolis, with the broader hope being a stable Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. This is something Riyadh never seemed to fret about in the past, but all of a sudden, there’s a bigger concern than Zionists and Americans veering its ugly head–Iran.
The Saudi government represents everything reprehensible that the Islamic Republic was built to reject–Western imperialism, monarchism, apostasy and greed. This hodgepodge coalition against the Iranian hegemon is the real subtext of Annapolis, and Tehran knows it. The Israelis will now be pressured into making a land deal with 1/2 of the Palestinian government, not for the sake of a tenable peace, but instead to prepare for a regional mini-Cold War with Iran.
The idea is to contain Iran, and isolate them in their own neighborhood. But this can’t be done, presumably, without some kind of “peace” between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Does anyone seriously believe that can happen in Annapolis?
The first “peace talks” will take place on Dec. 12.
Bernard Lewis: “If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose ” to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.”
Israel could cede all but 1% of her land and there would still be conflict. The Arabs will not settle for anything less than the total destruction of Israel and death to the Jews.
November 27, 2007 - 11:31 AM on November 27th, 2007
Sorry, Pam, but that’s balderdash.
Yes, some Arabs are still bent on the destruction of Israel. That’s the Hamas/Hezbollah line for sure.
But the majority of Arabs realize that Israel is a fact. Some Arab states have made peace with Israel (Egypt and Jordan). Others have somewhat regularized their relations, at least when it comes to trade (Morocco, Tunisia, Qatar). Those Arab states that are members of the WTO have dropped their secondary and tertiary boycotts of Israel, though most still maintain their primary boycotts. Boycotting Israeli companies is not quite the same as wishing for the ‘total destruction of Israel and death to the Jews’.
The Saudi peace initiative of 2002 (prior to the US invasion of Iraq and the relaunching of Iranian power dreams) set out a set of conditions under which Arab states could offer full recognition to Israel. The then-Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia then obtained the backing of the Arab League for that plan. This hardly suggests that the underlying motive is death and destruction.
I’d certainly agree that the Arab states have not done enough to rein in their media on anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic writings. The Saudis could move faster to rectify a 70-year history of extremist religious intolerance. But the facts in the region have changed over the past few years. The analyses offered above, unfortunately, have not.
November 27, 2007 - 02:42 PM on November 27th, 2007
John. While I can appreciate the desire to want peace I really think you are naive on this one. First of all the Saudi’s are huge financiers of terror. They are not our friends nor are they Israels. The teachings of the Koran state that Israel must go and all the Arab countries buy into that premise. Some, like Ahmadinejad in Iran, have no inhibitions about saying it aloud. Others, like Egypt, are more discreet. Make no mistake however, their mission is to eliminate and dominate western society and that includes getting Israel off their (perceived) lands. Why do you think it never ends? Arafat was given 97% of what he asked for from Israel but we all found out the hard way he had no intention of peace.
Personally I think it was a huge mistake for Clinton to have them and I think these peace talks might be a mistake for Pres. Bush as well. Living near Annapolis I will make sure I stay away. I have no desire to risk being killed by some muslim extremist who doesn’t mind blowing themselves up if it will kill Israeli supporters.
November 27, 2007 - 02:59 PM on November 27th, 2007
2, BonBon, tell Mr. “I’m in a Dinner Jacket” precisely what you think. Here’s a link. http://www.president.ir/eng/
The idiot has a link to hear from you.
November 27, 2007 - 05:31 PM on November 27th, 2007
1- John, thanks for taking the time to post a civilized response. I appreciate it very much. I linked to RCP and you, so that your quote would be included in my roundup, and balance could be added…
November 27, 2007 - 06:07 PM on November 27th, 2007
I have to disagree that ‘Saudis are huge financiers of terrorism’. Not to go all Clintonesque, but if that means the Saudi state or the majority of Saudis, it’s simply not true.
If you rephrase the comment to ’some Saudis are suspected of funding terrorism’, you’re in the right ballpark.
I was head of the Public Diplomacy section of the US Embassy in Riyadh from late September 2001 to October 2003. During that time, scores of FBI, CIA, Treasury and other investigators came through the embassy. They were all looking for that magic connection that linked Saudi names (or bank accounts) with terrorism.
What they found were a number of charity groups that while performing actual charitable work in some places and in some regards, were also filtering money to jihadists. The Saudi government cooperated with the US and UN to designate to groups (and a handful of individuals) as financiers of terror.
The US investigators did not–nor have they yet–identified any significant member of the Saudi government as a financier. They have suspicions of some individuals and a couple of the major charities, but nothing they can bring to any court, US, Saudi, or international.
There are certainly bad Saudis. I was in Riyadh when the residential compounds were blown up in May 2003. I’ve had the ‘honor’ of having my business card showing up on jihadi websites following visits to Saudi government offices. While I doubt very much that the Ministers are interested in jihad, there are definitely lower-level employees willing to pass on info about people they think are ‘corrupting’ the KSA.
I don’t take terrorism lightly. I’ve lost dozens of friends and colleagues to terrorism, from the Beirut embassy bombings, through Lockerbie, up to the bombings of US embassies in Africa.
Instead of lashing out at easy targets though, I’d rather focus on what the real issues and the real people are doing. That includes noting what Saudis are doing to fix problems they created for themselves decades ago.
I blog about Saudi Arabia–including what’s going wrong and what’s going right–at Crossroads Arabia.
I don’t get a penny from anyone for my blog–or for my opinions elsewhere. I write because I think US-Saudi relations are and will remain critical to the US. Oil is hardly a factor in those relations; a lot of other things are.
November 27, 2007 - 06:24 PM on November 27th, 2007
John. First of all I’d like to offer my condolences to you for the loss of people close to you. Terrorism is an ugly cancer that is growing on this earth. I have bookmarked your website and will be reading it more in depth over the next few days.
Steve Emerson’s investigative project has been enormously revealing in the web of non-profits, corporate exploitation and other charitable ways muslims are funding jihad. From what I read alot of the money comes from Saudi sources.
Either way, they are not alone in their support and I agree that there are alot of muslim leaders who wish only peace as well. It’s going to be a hard job for western leaders to know who wants peace and who doesn’t.
We all should remain vigilant at this time however and not give in to fear. Smarts is what it’s going to take when all is said and done.
November 28, 2007 - 12:13 AM on November 28th, 2007
“Joint understanding” is only going downhill
Just more negotiations it is, and a forced handshake. At the Washington Times, Frank Gaffney calls the Annapolis folly a “gang rape”
November 28, 2007 - 09:09 AM on November 28th, 2007
Why do those cowards keep their faces behind ski masks anyway? why dont they want thier faces seen?