The Annapolis Conference
I listened to the honeyed words of Messrs. Bush, Abbas and Olmert from Annapolis. All very nice and comforting. But, when it comes down to "brass tacks," as they like to say in the North of England, it all hinges on Abbas being able to control his mini-state in the West Bank, to establish civil and military control, to take the guns away from the militants and terrorists (is there a distinction?) and to establish a stable civil society among Palestinians. They plan to conclude a peace agreement within a year, but how many hundreds of years do you think this process will take?
At least he has the help of Tony Blair to try to bring this miracle about. But, as far as I am concerned Israel should make no concessions, no withdrawals and definitely no territorial compromises on the West Bank and Jerusalem until this status has been established. In other words, no agreement (if arrived at) could be implemented on the ground for the forseeable future.
Yesterday there was a prayer meeting at the Kotel in Jerusalem by thousands of Orthodox Jews who prayed for the failure (!) of Annapolis. There was also a right wing secular demonstration in Jeruslaem that had as its theme opposition to Israel participating in the Annapolis Conference. I do not agree with these positions. If I believed in the efficacy of prayer I would pray that Annapolis succeed, and I see no way that Israel could be absent from Annapolis. However, that doesn't exempt me from being critical, sceptical and downright cynical. That is the right of every Israeli who knows history and the failed results of every previous agreement with the Arabs.
It makes sense that eventually even the Arabs must come to the conclusion that they can't destroy Israel, so they might as well end their own suffering and backwardness and take a step forward (at least this is the liberal mantra). But, this is too rational a proposition, and the likelihood that Palestinians as a whole and the assembled Arab and Islamic nations are actually preparing to follow a rational pragmatic path is too low to calculate.
Ask yourself the question, why does it take more than 40 nations apart from the belligerants to solve this problem? Why are they all there, what is their interest? According to Abbas they are there to show support for the position of the Palestinian people, but parenthetically really to show support for him as their representative. So this is an inter-Arab struggle, with Hamas in Gaza (and of course the Iranians) rejecting any conclusion of Annapolis in advance. So Israel is now a pawn in the inter-Arab, or rather inter-Muslim, power struggle, between the so-called Sunni moderates and the Shia-dominated rejectionists.
Only history can judge in the fulness of time whether or not this meeting at Annapolis will result in genuine compromise on both sides, or if it will be the same game of Israel giving everything and getting nothing except more terrorism in return. I don't even question Abbas' sincerity, I only question his ability to deliver.
At least he has the help of Tony Blair to try to bring this miracle about. But, as far as I am concerned Israel should make no concessions, no withdrawals and definitely no territorial compromises on the West Bank and Jerusalem until this status has been established. In other words, no agreement (if arrived at) could be implemented on the ground for the forseeable future.
Yesterday there was a prayer meeting at the Kotel in Jerusalem by thousands of Orthodox Jews who prayed for the failure (!) of Annapolis. There was also a right wing secular demonstration in Jeruslaem that had as its theme opposition to Israel participating in the Annapolis Conference. I do not agree with these positions. If I believed in the efficacy of prayer I would pray that Annapolis succeed, and I see no way that Israel could be absent from Annapolis. However, that doesn't exempt me from being critical, sceptical and downright cynical. That is the right of every Israeli who knows history and the failed results of every previous agreement with the Arabs.
It makes sense that eventually even the Arabs must come to the conclusion that they can't destroy Israel, so they might as well end their own suffering and backwardness and take a step forward (at least this is the liberal mantra). But, this is too rational a proposition, and the likelihood that Palestinians as a whole and the assembled Arab and Islamic nations are actually preparing to follow a rational pragmatic path is too low to calculate.
Ask yourself the question, why does it take more than 40 nations apart from the belligerants to solve this problem? Why are they all there, what is their interest? According to Abbas they are there to show support for the position of the Palestinian people, but parenthetically really to show support for him as their representative. So this is an inter-Arab struggle, with Hamas in Gaza (and of course the Iranians) rejecting any conclusion of Annapolis in advance. So Israel is now a pawn in the inter-Arab, or rather inter-Muslim, power struggle, between the so-called Sunni moderates and the Shia-dominated rejectionists.
Only history can judge in the fulness of time whether or not this meeting at Annapolis will result in genuine compromise on both sides, or if it will be the same game of Israel giving everything and getting nothing except more terrorism in return. I don't even question Abbas' sincerity, I only question his ability to deliver.
posted by Jack Cohen at 2:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home