Annapolis’s Sole Purpose Is to Serve the Bush Agenda
There can have been few more excruciating sights than President Bush parading the Israeli and Palestinian leaders before the cameras at the Annapolis summit on Tuesday, clasping their hands, squeezing their shoulders, pushing them together for a handshake and then leaving them to return to their seats like awkward boys summoned to the podium to be congratulated for their efforts at a school prizegiving.
But then that was only right for the occasion. Why were President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert there in the first place, if not because the White House had propelled them there with not an iota of prior agreement between them? And why did their joint statement of intent single out the end of 2008 as the time by which they hoped to reach a peace settlement? Because that is when President Bush will be leaving office.
This is not just the carping of a Bush critic. No one in their right mind would wish for anything other than peace to come to the Middle East. For the last four decades since the 1967 war, Palestinians and Arabs everywhere have begged and prayed for the West, and America in particular, to enter the fray and force the pace of peace. One could hardly complain that this is what Washington now appears to be doing, and under a president who has so long resisted it.
But this is not where the White House is heading. Forget all the rolling acres of analysis devoted to what separates the sides, the compromises that might be reached, the grave opinions as to how this is the “best chance” for peace in a decade and all the other guff that surrounds these talks, as it has surrounded all its many predecessors.
A lasting peace is not the primary point of this exercise, although the participants might be happy if it did achieve it. The Annapolis process is here for one purpose only, and that is for the final justification of Bush’s presidency, his “legacy” after all the failures in Iraq and elsewhere. It will be regarded as a success if he gets to the elections next November with the parties still talking, or there having been a breakdown that can be clearly blamed on one side or another, presumably in this case the Palestinians.
Make no mistake about it. The process set in motion at Annapolis is a humiliation for the Palestinians, made all the worse because they have no choice but to go along with it, mouthing the platitudes of peaceful intent without the slightest confidence that they can achieve, or be given, anything in return for their promises of good behaviour.
And they are having to do it before an Arab world equally dragooned into acting as cheerleaders, unable to resist the pressure of Washington and fearful of looking bad if they didn’t attend. No one believes in the efficacy of the project, certainly not the ordinary Palestinian or Israeli, but their leaders are there because they feel they cannot afford not to be.
If you doubt that interpretation, read the text of President Bush’s speech in opening the conference. Well over half is given over to a catalogue of what the White House wants - no, demands - from the Palestinians and how it sees the talks not as a resolution of the Palestinian cause but an exemplar of Bush’s long-vaunted vision of democracy for the whole Middle East. After the failure in Iraq, now it is Palestine, and behind it the Arab League, that is being asked to act as America’s frontline force in the manichean struggle against fundamentalism in the Middle East.
“The Palestinians,” said Bush in a revealing passage, “must show the world they understand that, while the borders of a Palestinian state are important, the nature of a Palestinian state is just as important. They must show that a Palestinian state will accept its responsibility, and have the capability to be a source of stability and peace - for its own citizens, for the people of Israel, and for the whole region.”
Israel in contrast is asked to do little more than “remove unauthorised outposts, end settlement expansion and find other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel’s security”. In other words, Israel is under no pressure to move on the bigger issues of right of return, the status of Jerusalem or the dismantling of authorised settlements on the West Bank.
Introducing a wonderful concert by the Joubran Trio at the Barbican recently, the trio’s leader explained to the audience that the three brothers were Palestinian, before adding with quiet emphasis: “We do not seek peace. We seek justice.” There was a moment of stunned silence before the largely Arab crowd erupted in acclamation.
You won’t see the word justice in President Bush’s speech, nor for that matter in President Abbas’s. The reason is simple. The Palestinians won’t get that, whatever the end of the process, from Annapolis, from Israel or from this administration.
– a.hamilton@ independent.co.uk
© 2007 The Independent
Amen.
“The Five People that should have been at the Annapolis Peace Summit”
http://www.chycho.com/?q=node/1341
“If the following people were attending the Annapolis Peace Summit then there would have been some hope for a true peace settlement, because those who create art know more about peace then those who wage war.”
From Israel: Chava Alberstein
From Palestine: Mahmoud Darwish
From the United States: Willie Nelson
From Lebanon: Marcel Khalife
From England: Yusuf Islam
Did any one think the purpose of the Annapolis summit was to bring peace and justice to those who need it most in the Middle East? If you do I would like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
The sole purpose is to obfuscate the issues, maintain the status quo and if possible advance Israel’s agenda a little more.
The outcome of this summit will be more crap dumped on the palestinians and the Israelis will walk away after having made their “best offer yet” to the Palestinians.
**Did any one think the purpose of the Annapolis summit was to bring peace and justice to those who need it most in the Middle East?**
no
One of the difficulties in getting any Israeli government to give up any of the West Bank is they believe if they have no legitimate claim to the West Bank, it follows that they have no legitimate claim to Tel Aviv. And on the Palestinian side, accepting the West Bank and Gaza as all that’s left of pre-1948 Palestine makes the Partition of Palestine and the loss of the bulk of their nation legitimate. How can any Palestinian government go along with the surrender of the better part of their country?
Maybe the only possible answer, one that gives peace and security to both sides, is a single democratic secular state where everyone has equal rights and responsibilities, no matter what their religion is or isn’t.
Annapolis is there to allow Israel more time to change the facts on ground (i.e. grab more land).
The summit was just a farce. Again more humiliation for Palestinians, Washington’s full support for the conduct of Israeli government policies in the occupied territories and complete disregard of major issues that are at the core of any meaningful peace settlement. This administration is disparately looking for a legacy of some sort and it is doubtful that Annapolis Summit will provide it. How can an occupier and its main ally negotiate honorably with one who is occupied and has no power?
The last real chance for peace was The Oslo Accords. That didn’t work. Why would any rational person suppose that this cheap and blatant George Wanker Bush-rigged Potemkin Village at Annapolis means anything other than the pathetic scrambling of the Punk President not to look like the homicidal piece of excrement that he is? There is absolutely nothing this egg sucking human amoeba can do now to disguise his essential emptiness and evil. When Bush dies and goes to Hell, how do you think he’ll handle Stalin when Uncle Joe comes to steal his lunch money?
Now, Mordechai. Don’t sugar-coat us. Tell us what you really feel.
Hell implies a tangible place. Is there a greater way to facilitate justice than to send these dark souls back into the world, for how many lifetimes it takes, to make reparations for all whose lives, homes, spirits, hopes, dreams, and livelihoods they crashed/burned/consumed/murdered? Hell is too kind, my friends; and besides, it’s a simplified concept of the afterlife…
If there is an afterlife, at least in the minds and memories we pass on, justice demands that their legacy should be relegated to oblivion. Not even as we remember Hitler and Attila the Hun.
This conference wasn’t to revive the “Peace Process” (whatever that is), but to revive the stalled careers and tattered reputations of Bush, Olmert and Abbas. It’s a dog-and-pony show to divert attention from the failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the failed policies that allowed 9/11 to happen despite clear warnings, the economic policies that are bringing on recession and causing the dollar to collapse, the environmental policies that threaten the survival of our species, and a host of other neocon debacles.
Bush wishing to have face time with any world leader seems to me a method of disempowerment, a means to reduce their popularity amongst their constituents. If their people are against them, as shaking hands with Bush assures, they will need Bushes protection.
Here’s the drill: soon, Israel will make more “pre-conditions” on the Palestinians before it agrees to sit down and actually talk to them. Then, Israel will use Hamas–savvy to this scam–as an excuse to claim that they cannot continue talking peace until the “terrorist violence” stops (ignoring, of course, the violence of their own military occupation). The whole project will be jettisoned after Bush leaves office, and the Palestinians will be cited as the cause of the failure. If any of the AIPAC-loving Democrats win the election, the Israelis are safe from having to make “peace” for another eight years. Whew–that was close!!!
The author criticizes the fact that Palestinians are asked to renounce terrorism because the Israelis are not being required to make “concessions” of their own such as resolving the ROR or Jerusalem. The author is clearly seeking to create a moral equivalency between terrorism and something like Jerusalem’s final status, which is disgusting.
Why should Palestine stop targeting civilians until Israel meets some of their political goals? Seriously? Because terrorism is a war crime of such severity that it far outstrips the immediate importance of questions like how Jerusalem should be divided.
“We do not seek peace. We seek justice.”
And that is largely the problem. There is no such thing as justice to be had by all in this conflict. Justice for one side necessitates a denial of justice for the other. In this case, peace and justice are unfortunately mutually exclusive. If the Palestinians insist on refusing peace until their concept of justice has been fully sated, then there will not be peace for a long time.
By the way, how can the author quote “We do not seek peace. We seek justice.” right after writing “For the last four decades since the 1967 war, Palestinians and Arabs everywhere have begged and prayed for the West, and America in particular, to enter the fray and force the pace of peace.”
And when did they start begging for peace anyway? My understanding of the last 40 years is that they swear against peace, unless their requirements have been met. (aka: justice.)