Annapolis guessing game, prospects

The current guessing game in the US and Israel is over “which of the Arab states will participate, and at which level.”
Actually, for many ardent pro-Israelis inside and outside the two governments, those questions about Arab representation are the sole focus of their concern about Annapolis, rather than, as good sense would dictate: “What is the best way to ensure that this gathering contributes to the speedy conclusion of sustainable final-status peace agreements between Israel and all their neighbors?”
There is very frequently a sort of “scalp-collecting” aspect to the way many Israelis, inside and outside of government, think about the possibility of encounters with Arab state nationals.
But anyway, the biggest questions right now about attendance at Annapolis are those over the responses of Syria and Saudi Arabia These two will be among the Arab states that are sending their foreign ministers to Cairo for an all-Arab confab tomorrow, at which many Arabs hope they will be able to find that long-sought Holy Grail, a “unified Arab position.”
AP’s Zeina Karam has a good report from Damascus today, in which she presents the evidence backing up her lead, which is “Syria is softening its refusal to attend the Annapolis peace conference and already has won dividends.”
And Al-Hayat’s Ibrahim Hamidi has an interesting report (in Arabic) in today’s paper, explaining the various strands of analysis that have been pursued by government insiders in Damascus.
People seeking a rendering of Hamidi’s article in English are strongly advised not to rely on the version presented by the usually sound young US professor Joshua Landis, who for some reason seems to have pasted in a commentary on the Hamidi report from elsewhere– most likely, the Israeli press– instead of presenting his English-language readers with the promised direct translation of it.
It is Thanksgiving here in the US, so I can only imagine that Landis just quickly used that commentary instead of working on his own translation of the piece. But the result is very inaccurate and misleading.
There is so much finegrained diplomacy going on around the question of the prospects for Annapolis that I don’t have time to assess it all here. I will just quickly note the following:

    (1) This is in many ways reminiscent of the lead-up to the Madrid Peace conference of October 31, 1991, but with some very important differences. These are that: a) Madrid was an extremely serious peace conference whose main participants were the direct parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, not a hodge-podge of rapidly enlisted states and governments from all around the known world. b) Madrid was extremely well-prepared, through a diplomatic process that lasted seven months and included winning the prior agreement of all parties on the language of the invitation letters, etc. Annapolis is a hastily-cobbled-together Amateur Hour, by comparison. c) The Bush I administration administration showed at and after Madrid that it was prepared to explicitly link the levels of US financial and political support to Israel to Israel’s continuation of its settlement-building program in the occupied territories. No-one in Bush II has dared breathe a word of any such linkage!
    (2) As always, the Israelis seem to be primed once again to try to “play off” the Syrians against the Palestinians. During the whole of the post-Madrid diplomacy, their use of that tactic was evident. (As noted in my 2000 book on the Syrian-Israeli negotiations of those years.) The result of the Israeli tacticians being “too clever by half” in that regard was that they ended up with neither a peace agreement with Syria nor a peace agreement with Palestine in hand… Unless that was what they had aimed for all along? Well, for some of the Israeli decisionmakers in those years, it is almost indisputable that that was their aim. For others, probably not. But the settlers in East Jerusalem, the rest of the Wset Bank, and Golan all got to continue their lovely lifestyles– and expand!
    (3) It is of course extremely relevant that poor old Lebanon is currently poised on the brink of constitutional disaster. In my work on my 2000 book, I examined the question as to whether, for this Baath Party regime in Syria, their interests in Lebanon or in Golan were weightier. And I concluded that at that time, it was their Lebanon interests. This time, of course, Syria’s situation in Lebanon is very different. But as a general rule, we can say that periods of intense Israeli-Arab peace diplomacy are often accompanied by an intensification of fighting (often, foreign-power-backed fighting) inside Lebanon. Why so many Lebanese people are so happy to allow foreign powers to jerk them around in this way is a subject for more consideration, another time. It would be wonderful if this time around, all parties, both Lebanese and non-Lebanese, could at least agree that the intervention of all outsiders in Lebanon’s internal politics is a no-no, and should be ended… And yes, that should most certainly include interventions from the US, Syria, Israel, and Iran.

And now, back to revising Chapter 4 of my current book project…
(Neither Bill nor I have time to cook a turkey today. We’re having our Thanksgiving meal at restaurant. Personally, I feel I have a lot to give thanks for this year. But the performance of the US Congress leaders we all helped elect a year ago is sadly nowhere near the top of that list.)

13 thoughts on “Annapolis guessing game, prospects”

  1. Even Annapolis is a good ploy for pushing some stale books written by Helena…Nice analysis, except that it overlooks the context of every peace effort. A bunch of Arab countries begging and demanding more land and concession in exchange for who knows what.
    How about a formula based on PEACE for PEACE which is what all peoples need to go focus on their families, interests, and happines.
    Happy Thanksgiving to all, from one that is truly grateful to this great and welcoming USA, and may God confuse all the backstabbers in our midsts and abroad.
    Doris

  2. Right, “Doris”. And your credentials for having anything of relevance to say on this subject are–?
    If you would ever once once adduce any actual evidence to back up your shrill and ideological arguments, people might take you a little more seriously.
    “Peace for peace”, indeed? So the beneficiaries of a military occupation would get to hang onto all their illegal grabbings? An interesting world that would lead to! “Might makes right” would be the only grounding principle there.
    Thankfully, the vast majority of the world’s people and governments understand that there is a far better way forward than that. It’s called: “A decent respect for the principles of international law and practice.” Including the idea that running a military occupation of a stretch of land confers no rights of “ownership” at all. If it did– wow!– then the US could just “own” the whole of Iraq! (Or Iraq, in an earlier era, could have legally owned the whole of Kuwait.)
    Time for you to get real and recognize that all the world’s peoples, including the Palestinians, have some important rights… That international law is important.. And that any sustainable peace agreement must adequately address those rights.

  3. Helena, if you don’t mind may I add this to what you commenting:
    THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
    THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
    May 14, 1948
    How much and what’s Israel did and doing to comply with her declaration?
    Any of Clauses of the above declaration have reality on the ground form the day of the establishment of the state of Israel?
    I don’t need to say that Israel does not comply with 99 UN resolutions and it’s the only state in the world that violated this number of UN resolutions with any punishment by the international community till now.
    Thus this state “Israel” should be the last state on this planet asking others to be comply with international and UN resolutions.

  4. Countries can not simply go out an conquer other countries. However, belligerents who attempt to destroy their neighbors and find their territory occupied cannot expect to have the status quo ante restored. In the case of the Israeli occupied territories it is particularly problematic because the alleged sovereign demanding the territories was not a recognized sovereign prior to the Israeli occupation.
    A very good discussion of this is below…
    http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf
    What Doris asks for is not unreasonable. What’s wrong with arab countries making peace with Israel before the specifics of a land dispute are worked out? Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon, the UAE, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, and most other Arab states have absolutely no territorial or other political claims against Israel.
    (There is apparently some talk of some of the Arab states agreeing to make peace if Israel agrees to formalize a settlement freeze and cease construction of the wall. The two mentioned are Oman and Qatar, which would make sense because it’s the gulf states that have always been the most progressive on this issue. Still, for actual recognition, I’ll believe it when I see it).
    Oh and Helena, drop the routine of attacking a person’s qualifications and belittling their knowledge whenever they present a viewpoint which differs when your own. You just come across as arrogant and shrill.

  6. “an instance where a suspected terrorist was in the hospital after being shot. “He had one tube in his vein and a one going from his nose to his abdomen … the doctor on duty understood what we wanted, turned his back and said: ‘you do your work and I will do mine.’ At that moment I began tugging at the tubes. The suspect understood we meant business and immediately began to talk.”
    “Sadly, it seems that Israeli society has accepted the role of partner in crime with people like Mr. Hadar. What separates Israel from its neighbors is not democracy or respect for human and civil rights: it is the discriminatory fashion by which these rights are denied. The insistence that acts of torture are illegal but inevitable and excusable in the context of Israeli security, point to Palestinians as the only possible victims.”
    http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=12501&sectionID=1

  7. Reagrding Israel’s pre-Annapolis “impressive and genuine good faith measures” :
    Israel kidnaps more than it intends to release
    “… exercising the policy of “revolving doors”, explaining that the number of Palestinian people kidnapped by its troops during the last two months was more than the number of prisoners it promised the PA to release.”
    “… in another context that the Israeli occupation is distorting the truth and deceiving the world and the Palestinian people when talking about dismantling some settlement outposts, explaining that Israel is attempting to reintroduce the principle of “settlement freeze” through its speech about freezing all settlement construction while it had already established 200 settlement outposts in the Palestinian lands.
    The lawmaker added that Israel is required to freeze all its settlement activities, including constructions in the existing settlement outposts where the Israeli settlers, living in those outposts built on usurped Palestinian lands, reached 450,000.”
    http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ArticlePrintPage.aspx?xyz=QrrxVt3TvzXHFqSIQc6HdyfsFwIimbl%2fqDDQPgUVp8wC4LRVhemJyHT%2fG45QOprlb3iUwjuhO%2fG8ywLU8I2gT6aRwpcSnEGIKWV0TladIQzemqRS%2bcsvog%3d%3d

  8. And your credentials for having anything of relevance to say on this subject are–?
    With respect Helena, any human being is “credentialed” to have an opinion on the I/P conflict, no matter how shrill or uninformed it may seem to you.
    Seriously, do you imagine your own idiosyncratic interpretations of international law to be somehow “above ideology?”
    Speaking of which, what are YOUR credentials in that area? Do you have any formal legal qualifications to speak of?
    Is this how we conduct political discussions: comparing diplomas, establishing academic (or god help us MORAL) authority and expecting others to bow before them?

  9. Credentials, eh? If that is really to be the criterion, who is safe?
    “Doris” admittedly sallied forth only lightly armed. She did scarcely more than indicate which team she roots for in Levant Bowl MMVII.
    But then along came “Joshua” to the damsel’s rescue with his forty-one pages of PDF — pages which some of us are not instantly going to scrutinize every sophistical word of, lazy sods that we are.
    Perhaps the Staff and Management of JWP might relax their standards a little for minority reports from the likes of “Doris” and “Joshua”? If it is worthwhile to put up with e-dissent at all, as I myself think it is, perhaps it was not really necessary to put the little lady down quite so preemptorily, or compel the learned gentleman to resort to such very heavy artillery?
    It matters more on the downside. The brazen and clever need no affirmative action, but a “Doris” should be given as warm a welcome as possible consistent with not assenting to her unfortunate views.
    If that policy does not commend itself as charity, think of it as showing off. None of the rightist equivalents of JWP care to hear a peep out of anybody who does not revere Dr. Pipes, for instance, as an exalted and almost infallible guru. Putting up with the occasional reference to “a good ploy for pushing some stale books” is a small price to pay for demonstrating one’s moral superiority.
    Anyway, it seems so to me, who have no books to push.
    Happy days.

  10. Doris,
    Do you even like yourself? I am always amazed at folks who have no capacity to reason critically, and thus resort to absurd insults, smearing, and the like to get their impotent point across.
    As an Historical Geographer, I cannot tell you how ridiculous you come across. Have you tried therapy? Really.
    I personally am utilizing much HC work on Lebanon, as well as a slew of works that are much older…a pity to be such a jilted human being as you make yourself out to be.

  11. Helena,
    I was very reluctant to write again but finally I can not stop myself to say I disagree with you and with any one in any way brings US occupation of Iraq or Israeli occupation with Iraq/Kuwaiti subject.
    Simply because as Arab nations most the Arab land was one big land were Arabs jump on their camels and start touring his land without borders and restrictions until Sykes-Picot structure on the sand those shadowy boarders.
    As for Iraq Kuwait there are many historical references and documents clear what that land was, but “the genie that the Americans have unleashed from the bottle, whether wittingly or not” in Iraq after 2003 what’s we seen in Iraq now ethnic divisions Wall gated communities ..etc as British Empire did after WWI in Arab land brought those small sheikhs and tribes created states for them without any consultations to any citizenry of that land which restructured those shaky kingdoms.
    If you make some research of the society structure in these kingdoms you will find that now in UAE the Arab are 20% of the people in that land, in Kuwaiti before invasion Kuwaitis are 350,000 and there were 1 millions are not.
    To me there is no justification to draw any comparison between Iraq /Kuwait saga and US or Israeli wars in Arab land.
    Please read this an old post it’s very interesting:
    Increasingly it looks as though the invasion and conquest of Iraq has triggered a process whereby the entire Sykes-Picot structure will crumble and disappear. In fact, the simplest, and perhaps the most accurate description of what is happening across the region is that the artificial Middle Eastern political geography created by the Anglo-French alliance during 1916-22 is coming apart at the seams.Wherever there is a seam,whether ethnic, religious or cultural, there is tension and actual or incipient conflict.
    The genie is out of the bottle

  13. As usual, some of the best and most critical stuff comes from the Israeli press.
    This one focuses on the ever incompetent Condoleezza Rice and her role in the Annapolis theatrical event.
    Rice has “no cohesive worldview about international relations or the modes of action required by the state.” Gee, ya THINK?! “She desperately needed an achievement, and so turned to the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” And of course what she will achieve there is yet another set of photo-ops.
    Is there ANYONE who thinks this thing has a chance in hell of accomplishing anything except providing some pictures for Condi’s parents to put on the wall?
    And by the way, conspicuous in their absence will be Hamas, the party Palestinians chose over all others in the free and fair elections the Bush regime insisted upon to represent them, and the PLO, long held to be the official representatives of the Palestinian people. Of course, there is nothing new about having the Palestinians unrepresented by anyone they would have represent them.

Comments are closed.