EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Dose of Realism Would Help at Annapolis
Condoleezza Rice is right that the Middle East meeting starting tomorrow represents progress. The gathering would have been unthinkable some months ago.
Most of the relevant players have been cajoled into coming.
Israel has changed "its traditional view," as she delicately put it, of dragging its feet through staged negotiations and committed instead to tackling all the key issues.
Syria is coming - on the understanding that negotiations on the Golan Heights would be resumed.
Rice has clearly learned some lessons from past pitfalls.
Bill Clinton's 2000 Camp David marathon failed mainly because he was trying to do too much at the end of his term, and had also neglected to engage the Saudis, the Egyptians and others to buck up Yasser Arafat.
Jimmy Carter's 1978 miracle brought peace to Israel and Egypt but left out the Palestinians.
The Oslo peace accord provided no neutral referees with the power to penalize violators.
With 14 months to go in George W. Bush's term, Rice has left herself enough time to try and fulfill his pledge to create a Palestinian state. But the skepticism enveloping Annapolis is well-founded.
Hamas won't be at the table, having been declared a terrorist entity. Attempting peace by going around Hamas may be even more risky than Clinton's failed end run around key Arab states.
There's no way to avoid dealing with Hamas at some point, says a recent letter to Bush by several eminent Americans, including Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Paul Volcker and Henry Siegman.
Mahmoud Abbas represents half the Palestinians. "Peace cannot be made by one man or by half a people," as Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal says.
Worse, Abbas is seen as an Israeli-American tool in inflicting collective punishments on Gazans for voting the wrong way.
Gaza remains under siege, its airspace, sea coast and main border crossings controlled by Israel and its 1.5 million inhabitants kept under suffocating conditions.
According to Raji Sourani, director of Gaza's Centre for Human Rights: "In prison, and I have been in one, there are rules. But we live in a kind of animal farm, in a pen, and they dump in food and medicine."
If isolating Hamas was an effective approach, it would have worked by now, just as punishing the Palestinians should have ended the conflict long ago.
Regardless of what Hamas says, Israel has a right to exist, and indeed thrive. So do the Palestinians. One is not possible without the other.
Annapolis is also freighted with several related issues: Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Muslim terrorism, sinking American credibility and the cultural warfare against Muslims, a hatefest from which Canada no longer seems immune.
The mess in Iraq has empowered Iran. But to demonize Iran or bomb its nuclear plants, against the pleas of the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is to toss a match into an inflammable region.
Trying to install a pro-American president in Lebanon is to risk plunging that country into chaos yet again. The way to contain Hezbollah is to deal with Syria and Iran, however distasteful. As the late Yitzhak Rabin said, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
Calling for "free and fair elections" in Lebanon is not credible after rejecting the election results in the Occupied Territories and turning a blind eye to the gerrymandered elections in Jordan and Egypt and arranging "democracy" in Pakistan under Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
One standard for allies and another for adversaries attracts derision, not the respect the world's largest democracy should elicit.
None of this is on the Annapolis agenda but it is on the minds of tens of millions of people. A realistic approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict would be a good start to restoring some hope.
Haroon Siddiqui, the Star's editorial page editor emeritus, appears Thursday in World & Comment and Sunday in the A section. hsiddiq@thestar.ca
© 2007 The Toronto Star
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

5 Comments so far
Show AllLove you Haroon. You get the gold prize for bravery !
It is mind-boggling to see another circus in Annapolis...there are three big lies in the current world affairs: 1. the US Occupation Forces in Iraq return home sooner or later. 2. There would be a peace in Palestine in the form of One-State or Two-State Solution. 3. The North Koreans destroy their nuclear capabilities in return for the US and S Korean aids.
If anyone believes one or all of above-mentioned events are true. he or she is a delusional moron.
I hope Mr. Haroon Siddiqui does not belong to one of them.
the author writes: "Regardless of what Hamas says, Israel has a right to exist, and indeed thrive. So do the Palestinians. One is not possible without the other."
Hamas really believes that a certain group of people have no right to exist? or just exist in the middle east? One CAN be possible without the other....
does the US of I have any less right in occupying Iraq as Israel has in occupying it's "territories"? I think not...
Hellodarling...
the occupation of Iraq and Israel's presence in the OPT are two very different situations. In Iraq, the occupying forces are foreign soldiers in a sovereign nation and their presence is temporary. The land Israel occupies in Palestine can be more accurately "disputed territory" than "occupied" as there are conflicting claims between two nationalist groups for it, both of them with real and persuasive arguments. The land itself does not belong to any state currently.
East Jerusalem is a good example. Some of Judaism's most sacred structures exist there and the area has been home to a near continuous Jewish population for thousands of years. The Jews were thrown out or killed during the war in '48 and their homes resettled by Arabs. Clearly, the very same structures are sacred to the city's Arab population and they equally have the right to homes they have been living in, whether if for a few decades or for centuries. East Jerusalem was not supposed to belong to either Israel or Palestine, (or Jordan) so it is difficult to come to a quick conclusion that it rightfully should be exclusively Israel's or Palestine's.
Not every "occupation" is a hilltop settlement. Iraq and Israel have next to nothing in common in terms of occupation.
Shaktimaan writes "In Iraq, the occupying forces are foreign soldiers in a sovereign nation and their presence is temporary. "
ok, granted the u.s. presence is "foreign" but i highly doubt it will be "temporary".
"The land Israel occupies in Palestine can be more accurately "disputed territory" than "occupied" as there are conflicting claims between two nationalist groups for it, both of them with real and persuasive arguments"
well the land the u.s. occupies in iraq has OIL under it and could be seen as "disputed territory" than "occupied" as there are conflicting claims for it, both of them with real and persuasive arguments. it could even be said that the OIL in iraq belongs to no state in particular until the conflict is resolved.
i will not attempt discoursing on the particulars of the palestinian/israeli conflict as i'm sure i have nothing to add to your knowledge. however, i have to stick to my argument that there are indeed commonalities, though few, between the two. in fact, i would venture to say that they are inextricably linked in a way closer than most people realize....