Handicapping the Annapolis Peace Conference

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=xtisme]
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
[/QUOTE]

In the (very highly unlikely) event the conference produces an agreement on an independent Palestinian state – really independent, controlling its own borders with Jordan and Egypt and sovereign over what are now Israeli settlements and tolerating no IDF troops within its territory – and presents that as a fait accompli, what are Hamas and Iran supposed to do about it?

22

I don’t know BG…maybe what they did last time? Increased violence, especially against Israel (the last time is when the first suicide bombings started in Israel). I don’t think this will happen before there is some kind of agreement…I think it will happen to make sure that there IS no agreement or settlement.

-XT

23

Did a quick search on google (sorry, at work atm) and found this article which seems to go over some of what is going on behind the scenes:

Now…it’s debatable whether or not Iran and/or Hamas SHOULD be included in the peace process (I think Iran…maybe. Hamas…definitely not), but that they have played a spoiler role in the past and will do so again is pretty much a slam dunk, at least IMHO. YMMV and usually does…

-XT

24

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Now…it’s debatable whether or not Iran and/or Hamas SHOULD be included in the peace process (I think Iran…maybe. Hamas…definitely not), but that they have played a spoiler role in the past and will do so again is pretty much a slam dunk, at least IMHO. YMMV and usually does..
[/QUOTE]

That was sort of my point though. Hamas and Iran can spoil any deal, so without coming to some sort of accord with them, there isn’t really any point in making deals.

I understand peoples skepticism that such an accord is possible, but we’ve already seen that its impossible without them, so if we’re going to bother having a conference at all, why not at least invite them and give it a try.

25

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
That was sort of my point though. Hamas and Iran can spoil any deal, so without coming to some sort of accord with them, there isn’t really any point in making deals.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not a big fan of caving in to pressure like that. You COULD just admit that they will do what they are going to do and fight through it for peace without working with a terrorist group (Hamas) and a rogue state (Iran). However, if you aren’t willing to pay the price, then you will be forced to go through Iran and Hamas if you want to get anything accomplished.

-XT

26

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I’m not a big fan of caving in to pressure like that.
[/QUOTE]

Caving into pressure to do what? I don’t think Hamas is firing missiles at Israel or Iran is funding Hezbollah just to get a invite to Annapolis.

And really, isn’t a peace conference sort of predicated on the idea that both sides will “cave into pressure” from violence by giving into at least some of their demands in order to prevent further violence?

27

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
That was sort of my point though. Hamas and Iran can spoil any deal, so without coming to some sort of accord with them, there isn’t really any point in making deals.
[/quote]

Not necessarily true. With a fully functional PA that explicitly recognizes Israel and an international community that’ll actually crack down on Hamas and their backers, there might just be a chance. It’s slim, but it’s not impossible. Especially with Hamas bottled up, currently at least.

Of course, Fatah is Arafat Lite, but, ya know, anybody can dream.

[QUOTE=Malodorous]

I understand peoples skepticism that such an accord is possible, but we’ve already seen that its impossible without them, so if we’re going to bother having a conference at all, why not at least invite them and give it a try.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, the situation now with Gazastan and the West Bank being, for all practical purposes, separate entities provides a golden opportunity for Fatah to shed their history and make an actual peace deal this time.

Some people decide to pick up an ideology, and facts be damned.
The idea that Israel returning to the 1967 borders would solve everything is, at best, a fantastically ignorant pipe dream and at worst, wilfully dishonest deception.

Hamas has made clear, time and again, that their goal is not the negotiated territorial compromise outlined by UNSC 242. It is not the resumption of any past peace negotiations nor the completion of any plans for disengagement and Palestinian sovereignty as a second state. They have stated that they will never recognize Israel. They have stated that any period of truce will only be a time to resupply themselves with weapons.

Their goal, simply, in their own language and set down in their own charter, is a single Islamic state and the genocide of the Jews. With such a group there is no compromise, despite what the Chamberlainesque usual suspects will claim. Unless and until they change their guiding ideology and goals, negotiation with them is a farce.

The idea that, given freedom of movement, an end to the interdiction of foreign weapons and an end to Israel’s security cordons, Hamas would simply play nice is so absurd as to dismissed off the cuff. It displays a truly profound ignorance to think that, with all that in place, Hamas wouldn’t simply arm itself freely with Iranian weaponry. And of course, those of us in the reality based community know that, Hamas being within range of every major Israeli city and freely armed by Iran, the rockets would soon be falling on Tel Aviv as well. And Fatah would most likely be facing a civil war that they might very well lose.

Hamas’ reaction to getting Israel to stop all protective measures would not be to say that it was time for peace, but that it was time to launch new attacks. Any other claims require people to ignore or be ignorant of history as well as current events.

Now, as for the peace conference itself… as I said, it’s goals should correctly be the solidifying of ties between the PA and Israel. Although even now, there are still calls for the destruction of Israel on PA TV. Outright incitement to genocide is still disturbingly common. There is a reason that Mein Kampf, translated into Arabic, is a bestseller among the Palestinians.

Nor is there, right now, much hope from their government. Recently, for instance, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat justified his government’s refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state by saying that it was “not acceptable for a country to link its national character to a specific religion.”

Something of a spurious objection, when one considers Article 4 of the Palestinians’ Basic Law: "1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. "

So is peace possible? Yes… if Fatah wants to play ball. Olmert has been
offering quite a bit, and so far it seems that the only real result from the Palestinian side is posturing. More likely than not, it’s a gamble to get Europeans to increase donations to the PA and political pressure on Israel. Maybe, this time, their European champions will do more than toss money into a bottomless pit. Perhaps they’ll at least make sure that money is spent on improving peoples’ lives instead of weapons. I’m not holding my breath.
Here’s hoping, though.

28

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Caving into pressure to do what? I don’t think Hamas is firing missiles at Israel or Iran is funding Hezbollah just to get a invite to Annapolis.
[/QUOTE]

Did you read the article I posted earlier? It goes into exactly what Hamas DID do the last time. And why they did it.

(on preview, what Finn said).

-XT

29

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
The idea that Israel returning to the 1967 borders would solve everything is, at best, a fantastically ignorant pipe dream and at worst, wilfully dishonest deception.
[/QUOTE]

I can see the point there WRT East Jerusalem, but, otherwise, how could an economically viable Palestinian state be made out of anything less than the whole West Bank? (Disregarding Gaza, which might never be more than an economic sinkhole during our lifetimes.)

30

It’s hard not to look at the big picture in regards to cultural ideology. When I look at Saudi Arabia I see a religion-state that would rather see young girls die in a school fire than allow them on the street without a head covering.

Lebanon has the Islamic equivalent of the KKK willing to shoot thousands of military rockets into Israel.

Every country in the region is ready to go postal over a cartoon.

I don’t ever see anything positive happening in this region until a massive cultural change occurs on the order of a Martin Luther or a general cultural backlash against state enforced religion.

31

[QUOTE=Magiver]
I don’t ever see anything positive happening in this region until a massive cultural change occurs on the order of a Martin Luther or a general cultural backlash against state enforced religion.
[/QUOTE]

Going by Luther’s history and the history of the century+ following him, that would be a cure far worse than the disease except in the very long run. And we all have to live in the short run, and in the long run we’re all dead.

32

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Going by Luther’s history and the history of the century+ following him, that would be a cure far worse than the disease except in the very long run. And we all have to live in the short run, and in the long run we’re all dead.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes and no, if it happens from within, then it’s a cultural change that cannot be stopped. If it’s transborder (war) then it will be ugly.

33

But that still doesn’t mean it is or is not the only way out of the mess.

In contrast to Magiver’s idea, though, a Martin Luther is not what they need. BG was right to say that Luther (if partly inadvertently) unleashed a hellstorm of flaming war and revolution. Islam needs what it once had: a Caliph. But it cannot be a political leader or a fanatic nutcase a la Khomeini in Iran. It simply needs someone sensible and admired to keep people from ripping themselves apart. It needs, in short, a Pope or a Dalai Llama.

The problem is that it’s not really possible now. The old Caliphate broke up, no one wants to be under another’s thumb, and the rise of insane Wahhabist Islam makes it impractical. Islam is moving backwards, and unlike the “Dark Ages*,” they have lost real progress.

*While there was a period of economic stagnation and educational loss following the collapse of Rome, much of this is due to the simple fact that whole new populations moved in. Some engineering tricks were lot, but on the whole knowledge, learning, technology, and culture continued to develop throughout the whole of the Middle Ages.

34

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
In contrast to Magiver’s idea, though, a Martin Luther is not what they need. BG was right to say that Luther (if partly inadvertently) unleashed a hellstorm of flaming war and revolution. Islam needs what it once had: a Caliph. But it cannot be a political leader or a fanatic nutcase a la Khomeini in Iran. It simply needs someone sensible and admired to keep people from ripping themselves apart. It needs, in short, a Pope or a Dalai Llama.
[/QUOTE]

Christianity certainly does not need a Pope-of-All-Christendom. Why does Islam need a Caliph-of-All-Islam?

35

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
But that still doesn’t mean it is or is not the only way out of the mess.

In contrast to Magiver’s idea, though, a Martin Luther is not what they need. BG was right to say that Luther (if partly inadvertently) unleashed a hellstorm of flaming war and revolution. Islam needs what it once had: a Caliph. But it cannot be a political leader or a fanatic nutcase a la Khomeini in Iran. It simply needs someone sensible and admired to keep people from ripping themselves apart. It needs, in short, a Pope or a Dalai Llama.

The problem is that it’s not really possible now. The old Caliphate broke up, no one wants to be under another’s thumb, and the rise of insane Wahhabist Islam makes it impractical. Islam is moving backwards, and unlike the “Dark Ages*,” they have lost real progress.

*While there was a period of economic stagnation and educational loss following the collapse of Rome, much of this is due to the simple fact that whole new populations moved in. Some engineering tricks were lot, but on the whole knowledge, learning, technology, and culture continued to develop throughout the whole of the Middle Ages.
[/QUOTE]
technology moved forward in the dark ages because a religiously funded higherarch paid for the advances of war.

To say the world is not better for the works of Martin Luther because blood was spilled belies the realty that freedom comes at a price.

36

[QUOTE=Magiver]
To say the world is not better for the works of Martin Luther because blood was spilled belies the realty that freedom comes at a price.
[/QUOTE]

The world undoubtedly is better for Luther – now. But you would not have wanted to live through the working-out process.

37

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The world undoubtedly is better for Luther – now. But you would not have wanted to live through the working-out process.
[/QUOTE]
We’ll yah, but I’d say the same thing about the Civil War in the US if I lived through it. Freedom has historically been very expensive in terms of human suffering.

38

[QUOTE=Magiver]

I don’t ever see anything positive happening in this region until a massive cultural change occurs on the order of a Martin Luther or a general cultural backlash against state enforced religion.
[/QUOTE]

They’ve got Bin Laden He’s sort of like a Martin Luther.

39

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
They’ve got Bin Laden He’s sort of like a Martin Luther.
[/QUOTE]

More like Bernard of Clairvaux. He’s not trying to reform Islam but to unite it against the infidel.

40

[QUOTE=Alessan]
…As the story goes, the king might die. The horse might die. I might die. And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing.
[/QUOTE]

Heh. Thank you, Mr. Bury.

I’m extremely pessimistic about this peace conference. Bill Clinton couldn’t help bring about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians after intensively working on the problem in the last year and a half of his presidency, when both the then-Israeli PM (Barak?) and Arafat were in relatively good shape politically. It’s not gonna happen now, when Bush, Olmert and Abbas are all badly weakened among their respective constituencies.