The Annapolis Peace Conference just concluded its first day with representatives of 40 nations in attendance. Story here. SA Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal is attending but refused to shake Israeli PM Ehud Olmert’s hand. Iran and Hamas were not invited and sent no delegates; Iraq, Kuwait and Libya were invited but sent no delegates. Inauspicious . . . Anyway, Bush says the point of the conference is to secure a two-state solution. Any chance? If not that, might anything else of value come of it?
I’m going with a 99% chance it’s a complete failure with no tangible results, .98% chance that some minor agreement is reached, and a .02% chance that the meeting results in a viable two state solution.
We didn’t invite Hamas? Maybe I don’t understand the meaning of the word, but it seems silly to call it a peace conference and then not invite one of the major combatants. I mean, I guess its nice that China is there, but really it seems like it would be more useful to have fewer countries that are on the other side of the continent and more of the actual people involved in the fighting we’re trying to stop.
Also, we couldn’t get Kuwait to send a delegate? Ouch!
Oh, the conference is plenty handicapped already, there’s no need to do it any further.
It was just a big photo-op, with the main participants making cheerful promise that they’ll have this big 'ol mess cleaned up by the end of '08, disregarding the unpleasant fact that their domestic political situations, among myriad other factors, would make this impossible.
If Bush had locked the Israeli and Palestinian leadership away in some out of the way place (like Camp David or Dayton, Ohio), and told them not to come out until they had a viable solution, there might be some hope. A one-day meet and greet, on the other hand, is essentially useless.
The likelihood of Israeli/Palestinian peace being Bush’s legacy is about the same as that of the Iraq surge bringing the Iraqi people around to throwing the rose petals at our feet that we expected when we initially invaded.
Infinitesimal chance. Like most of what passes for diplomacy (or policy) in this administration, this was a photo-op, designed to LOOK like they’re doing something but not designed to actually accomplish anything substantial. You don’t have to actually DO what needs to be done, after all, as long as you can make it LOOK convincing enough to fool the general public.
If they’d invited Hamas, they’d have had to actually have real peace talks, or at least would have had to listen to Hamas’s side of the problem. Since they have their tame Palestinians involved, they can claim to have both sides at the table without actually having to delve into substance. Substance is anathema to this administration.
Anyone hear Bush trying to pronounce the names of Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas? It was cringe-making. “Eh… Eehood Omlette and Mo Mo Momod Abbuss.”
In fairness to Bush and his team, though, at least they’re trying diplomacy for once. And it was a one-dayer photo-op, because this was just a talk about agreeing to talks - something they succeeded in - and the detailed negotiations will begin (and fail) in December and beyond.
I think there’s a greater chance of agreement between those two parties than at any time before - both are (relatively) moderate, and one of them isn’t Arafat. It’s a shame, though, that they left the real problem out of the picture, so any agreement they come to will be dismantled by the extremists.
Well, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas abu Mazen is there; it’s just the most important political party (not his) in the Territories that isn’t.
Why should an organization not interested in peace - one completely unwilling to make any sort of concession - be invited to a peace conference?
Because peace is impossible without their cooperation?
Then peace is impossible, period.
xx
You’re talking about Israel, right?
Ah. Sarcasm.
I’d say the odds of a significant agreement are quite slim. But I have to give credit to Condi for pulling off as much as she did. If they do nothing else but talk civilly and agree to talk more in the future, I’d have to call it progress. Baby steps before giant steps, and one baby step is better than none.
Do you see another way? A settlement that could last and be stable without Hamas’ acquiescence? (N.B.: Hamas is not going away. Not in your lifetime.)
But why would Hamas need to be involved at all? In fact, it’s much more likely to succeed without them. Fatah can come to agreement without Hamas. If they do so, Hamas will face a much harder going in trying to mess Israel’s face. Hamas is stick in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank. At this, point, they are functionally two seperate entities.
More to the point, Israel pretty much leaves them alone to the extent it can/ It won’t let them import weapons, but Hamas is basically run by a lunatic pack of morons, compeltely incapable of ruling except by shooting people. They have no administrative capacity at all. They have no ability to negotiate and nothing to negotiate over.
No one has successfully answered what including Hamas would accomplish, assuming they would even come (which I personally doubt). They will not go for peace and could have it easily if they wanted it. They want Israel gone and the Jews dead or expelled. There really is no common ground or treaty terms to work out there.
If hamas is there, would it actually help? How? What would Hamas possibly give up or negotiate over? Why would they want to do so? What could Israel even give them except its mass suicide? If there’s nothing to negotiate on, why not wait until a more opportune moment, when you might be able to get something started.*
In fact, we’re probably looking at a three-state solution now. Gaza, Israel, West Bank. Gaza will basically remain a miserable hole until Hamas realizes it can’t eat jihad. And of course, Israel has found ways to deny them access to Israel, although IIRC they still shoot at times. But they have, at least, fewer rockets and fewer targets.
*I recognize that sometimes you negotiate just to keep a channel open, or as a prelimiary negotiation to the real diplomacy later. However, this still assumes some sort of possibility of getting somewhere, which is not present. Moreover, it would reward Hamas for basically acting like total jerks, whereas Fatah has calmed down a lot in recent years. Hopefully, a seperate treaty with fatah would undermine Hamas’s hopes, and their own pitiful governance will undercut them in the years to come.
I’ve pretty much given up hope on peace in my lifetime, which, of course, will be very long. But who knows? Maybe Hamas *will * disappear in my lifetime, or will transform itself into something moderate enough to want peace. Maybe the Palestinians can pull themselves out of the morass of hatred and religious fanaticism they seem to be stuck in, and maybe the idiots living on my side of the fence will get their priorities straight. In other words, making peace probably won’t work, but as long as we’re careful, it can’t hurt to try.
As the story goes, the king might die. The horse might die. I might die. And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing.
Have you forgotten why Hamas won the 2006 election? It was not because of their jihadist ideology. It was because they could deliver the goods to the people where Fatah could not.
That they can operate a soup kitchen or a small hospital to build support is not in the least, tiniest way an indictation of their fitness to rule even Gaza. I’m sure you didn’t note this, or this. They have no idea how to govern, and no concept of anything short of shooting people as a means of persuasion.
And yes, BG, read the entire first pieces. Yes, some Fatah people are miltarized and fighting them is aceptable. But the Hamas fools can’t even handle a peaceful demonstration.
Iran and Hamas will do their best to be spoilers, to the point of violence IMHO. And because of that I rate the chances of anything productive coming out of this at about a snow ball in hell level.
-XT