November 27, 2007
Column: Annapolis and a history of abject failure
Last time I visited Jerusalem, I sat down with a colleague and tried to see how many Middle East peace plans and conferences we could list. Within a couple of minutes we had scribbled down Venice, Madrid, Oslo, Camp David I, Camp David II, Taba, the Rogers plan, the Annan plan, the Reagan plan, the Tenet plan, the Saudi plan, the Mitchell report, the Geneva accord and the road map.
I have lost the beer mat on which I was keeping the minutes of our discussions – so I apologise if I have missed some out. But you get the general point. The record is not encouraging.
This long history of failure hangs over the latest peace conference, which convenes in Annapolis in the US this week. Each side has its favourite explanation for why peace has proved so elusive. The Arabs accuse the Israelis of bad faith and intransigence – and reproach the Americans for not putting enough pressure on the Jewish state. The Israelis blame the Palestinians for making impossible demands about refugees and Jerusalem, and never truly cracking down on terror. The real fatalists say that it may be impossible to create two viable states in such a small area.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Comments can be made below.
I am guessing this peace conference is the foreign distraction Bush is looking for in the final part of a lame duck presidency.
Posted by: James | November 27th, 2007 at 10:12 am | Report this commentI think the article is rightly a message of despair. Annapolis come to nothing as it is only about lip service and propaganda on one level and about exploiting the division among the Palestinians to Israel’s advantage, on another level.
I am disappointed that the article does not point out the hypocrisy of leaving out half the Palestinians (and the winners of the latest democratic elections held there) and also leaving out Iran. If this does not demonstrate the bankruptcy of the effort, nothing does.
Here are further thoughts.
- The article says: “The moderate Arab states are frightened by the rise of Iran. They need a peace settlement to cut the ground from underneath the Iranians and the Islamists.”…and later “And they must stop using the Palestinians’ plight as a useful distraction for their own discontented citizens.”
What exactly is so moderate about those “moderate Arab States” like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia? They are corrupt, dictatorial regimes with no popular base that are kept in power by brutality and foreign support. Through their own mismanagement, they are the hotbeds of Salafi-Jehadist movement and the homeland of the likes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi (Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian respectively.)
The second quote is exactly right. These “moderates” are only interested in the Palestinian cause to the extent that it helps them divert and distract from their internal problems. (Let’s not forget the brutal treatment given to Palestinians by the Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan in 1970/71 or the Kuwaitis treatment of the Palestinians in the early 90’s for examples of other Arabs really treat the Palestinians.)
If these “moderates” had an ounce of international credibility or domestic popularity themselves, they could be useful in playing the “good cop” to Iran’s “bad cop” and try to achieve a decent result for the Palestinians. As it is, they are a bunch of craven quislings internationally and corrupt bullies domestically.
- About Israel, it says “And there is no evidence that mainstream Israeli politicians are prepared for the political (and personal) risks of taking on the settler movement.”
This is true. I can only recommend the article in November’s issue of Le Monde Diplomatique, entitled “Israel: an army in power” that says “Hagai Alon, chief policy adviser to the defence minister on matters affecting Palestinians, says that the army is acting in breach of government policy and behaving as though it was the settlers’ army; this was always the case, he says, even when General Halutz was chief of the general staff
Interestingly, the above article, has this to say of Ehud Barak (we are always advised by supporters of Israel about what a generous offer he made to the Palestinians who stupidly rejected it):
Quote
As chief of the general staff, he [Barak] opposed the first Oslo accords of September 1993 and, as
minister of the interior, he voted against the Oslo II accords of September 1995, under which the Israeli army was
required to withdraw from the major Palestinian towns. He speaks of peace with the Arabs while at the same time
expressing his contempt for them and his opinion that their culture is based on lies. In his view, Israel is an oasis of
civilisation in the desert. He bears responsibility for the failure of the 2000 Camp David summit, so much so that
pacifists accused him of peace crimes. We now know that the “generous proposals” which he is supposed to have made to
Yasser Arafat, who is alleged to have rejected them, were a hoax.
Unquote
Basically, the Israelis have grabbed all the good land and water and propose to keep the Palestinians in Bantustans cum concentration camps and starve and bomb them till kingdom come…….
- Now that I mentioned the coming of the “Kingdom”, let’s also talk about the Americans. Any American administration (and this one more than any that has gone before) is boxed in by the religious right, on the one hand, and the Zionist lobby on the other. Even if Bush himself were not a rapture ready religious nut (which he probably is but cannot let on), his political base of the Christian-Zionists and his advisers who number countless Likudnik-NeoCons would not let him force Israel into a compromise.
The reason that past US presidents have left peace-making in the Middle East to the last years of their presidency is that they felt more immune to the Zionist lobby as they did not need to seek re-election. This presidency has a different agenda. It is seeking to exploit the division amongst the Palestinians to Israel’s further advantage.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pm | Report this commentIf LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE says so, then who are we to say otherwise? Especially when LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE is quoted by you!
Utterly incontrovertible.
Posted by: RCS | November 27th, 2007 at 1:43 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
Re the second line of your post, here is the link:
http://mondediplo.com/2007/11/04israel
Of course, it is a subscribers only site but worth the few shekels that you can spare as you never stop telling me how good the economy is in Israel.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 27th, 2007 at 1:55 pm | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
The economy is in terrific shape, grew at an annualised rate of 6% in the last quarter!
As for shekels I can spare a lot. I’ve just paid for my FT subscription in cheap dollars.
Posted by: RCS | November 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pm | Report this commentCertainly, there have were no signs for optimism. Nonetheless, as GR notes, much falls to how the Saudis play their hand in Annapolis. They certainly did not arrive as cheerleaders.
Since the weekend, signs that the Arab oil producers are indeed stepping in to save US and other markets from a full or near collapse have been many. The logic of shifting imbalances holds, except for the fact that this most recent US binge has not been one that Saudi godfathers have taken lightly.
They no doubt expect something for their money. It perhaps is coming in tougher-than-expected talks in Annapolis.
Nonetheless, GR lays out the most likely scenarios for the Palestinians, apart from the recently re-suggested de facto union with Jordan. None really serve the Palestinians well in the long run, but there is the fatigue factor, and perhaps Saudi big-daddy “generosity” will shame Olmert into yielding a few more metres of settlement territory.
Israel does not win. It will never be a truly dynamic society in this or the next generation. No one is waiting for the peace so that they can finally buy a ticket to Tel Aviv. Dubai and points east will fill the A380s.
Posted by: WCM | November 27th, 2007 at 11:45 pm | Report this commentThis article pretty much says it all;
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119604260214503526-lMyQjAxMDE3OTI2NjAyNDYyWj.html
The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from 50+ years of failed ‘peace plans’ is that the Arabs see the negotiations as a means of accomplishing by diplomacy what they failed to accomplish by war. The destruction of Israel.
Posted by: John Samford | November 27th, 2007 at 11:53 pm | Report this commentNegotiations are pointless as long as one side has destruction of the other as it’s goal.
Israel needs to set several ‘benchmarks’ to negotiations.
Maps with Israel on them would be a good place to start. Watch an Arab news program and you will notice that the map of the ME behind the news reader is missing a nation. Israel. Arab school books contain more lies about Israel and Jews then even Gobbels was able to invent. Let the Arabs prove that they are willing to recognize Israel as a state, both internationally and internally. For at least a decade, although a generation would be better.
As far as the two state solution, it happened already when the Palestine Mandate was split into Israel and Trans-Jordan. Returning to the 1967 borders will just legitimize the land stolen by the Arabic attacks in ‘48. Why not return to the 1947 border? The one established by the UN and violated by the Arab Nations in breach of the UN Charter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9OIqy6md9w
Listen to Rabbi Wiess.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 30th, 2007 at 3:15 pm | Report this commentThe single most significant point in the peace talks is that Israel is the only country in the world that has not declared its borders.
How can any neighbour recognise a state which does not declare it borders? The implications of non declaration are obvious and very intimidating for Israel’s neighbours.
If Israel was interested in peace based on the 1967 borders it would have declared it - problem solved. But anyone who knows the first thing about Zionism knows that Judea and Sumeria are still to be added…
Posted by: James | November 30th, 2007 at 3:20 pm | Report this commentHi James,
The two parallel blue lines on the Israeli flags are meant to represent two rivers, Nile and Euphrates. That is the extent of their ambitions!
Israelis are not good at declaring and discussing. Their nuclear weapons which are “not subject to discussion” are also another example.
Why discuss and negotiate when you can bomb and kill and get away with it? That is the thinking.
best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 30th, 2007 at 3:38 pm | Report this commentJames - Since when do countries “declare” their borders — I thought that was supposed to be based on mutual agreement. Anyway, there are many examples of contested borders, not just Israel’s: China-India, India-Pakistan, Japan-Russia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Libya-Chad, Ecuador-Peru and many more.
Pacifist - The Israeli flag is based on the Jewish prayer shawl. What you cite is a famous Muslim myth. The birthplace for many of these myths, Egypt, is a learned centre of publishing where “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” are still in print.
Posted by: RCS | November 30th, 2007 at 9:02 pm | Report this commentI just came across this article while searching for an Obama interview in LeMonde. “Palestinian” only has existed as an Arab national identity since 1948. This was after many fled to avoid retribution and prosecution after following the Mufti of Jerusalem’s call to kill and/or drive the Jews into the sea.
Posted by: Steve Emerson | February 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentRecords show that far more “Palestinians” have been killed by other “Palestinians” since then than by Israelis.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is the majority of the Palestine Mandate handed over to the British after WW I. Why isn’t this “Palestine?”
Also why don’t the “Palestinians” show Israel’s intentions and disavow terrorism and agree to Israel’s right to exist? They have nothing to lose if they do and if Israel doesn’t keep it’s word, then the “Palestinians” have demonstrated the validity of their claims.
As far as the wall goes, there are far less dead Israelis since its construction and governments have to do what they must to protect their citizens.