The chances of anything of substance coming out of this joke of a conference in Annapolis is precisely zero.
Reason number one is that Israel still has not reached a point in its history at which its desire to increase its territory, and to maintain its position as neighborhood bully is less important than living in peace, and integrating into the neighborhood in which its founders chose to establish it.
Only when Israel is ready to comply with international law, and become a good citizen of the world will it choose to make peace.
Posted by Shirin at November 23, 2007 02:06 PMMaybe it's Gates. Didn't the Iraq study report call for this sort of summit?
Posted by Masslib at November 23, 2007 02:09 PMHmm, the Bush gangsters holding a Middle Eastern "peace conference?" The biggest terrorists on the planet in the 21st century, the Bush crime family, want to talk "peace?" They should first get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, unconditionally...
The Israelis have been stealing Arab land and Arab water since 1948 and the English-speaking Western imperial powers, USA and UK, have been helping themselves to Arab oil since the end of WW I.
When Bush speaks of "peace" he means that he wants a "piece" of the Middle East...
Posted by james k. sayre at November 23, 2007 02:42 PMIf anything were to come out of this charade it would be literally the biggest surprise in the history of diplomacy.
With Bushco having fomented another hot civil war in Palestine with its refusal to acknowlege the winner in the election WE demanded, there are no sides to do any "negotiating".
Let's just say expectations couldn't be any lower---"They misunderestmated me!" Not really, George. Condi, better check the seating chart and canape "strategy" again, you twit.
Posted by euzoius at November 23, 2007 02:54 PMShirin,
How long after Israel's founding was it before its peaceful neighbors launched their first war to destroy Israel?
How many wars have Israel's peaceful neighbors started since then?
Posted by Bagley at November 23, 2007 03:21 PMThis charade is only meant for one group of consumers/chumps ....Wait for mighty Beltway Villagers/pundit world (aka the Ladies Circle Jerk Society as coined by digby) to go into full "Mission Accomplished" drool mode over it.
Why try to understand the actions of a sociopath?
Posted by Judith at November 23, 2007 05:46 PMif all sides can find money to be made, a temporary deal will be struck. Remember, Bill Clinton already made a Lasting Peace with all these guys back in the early 90's.....where did that go? Nothing can last when it involves people of the sands. The winds blow, the sands go with the wind.
Posted by T2 at November 23, 2007 06:01 PMThis 'summit' is little more than a joke in bad taste. Note how for a summit to determine what to do about Iran the only nation specifically NOT invited is Iran. Cheney/bush just want to drag Arab nations along when the US attacks Iran.
Posted by jwrjr at November 23, 2007 08:45 PMAnyone who thinks this has to do with Israel and Palestine are way off the mark. This is all about Arab governments allied with U.S., and the U.S. trying to make sure they remain a little more allied with the U.S. then against us as we continue to confront Iran.
Will this confrontation be diplomatic and not military? It's hard to say, isn't it? A month ago, I was quite fearful we were about to head off to war with Iran. A week ago, I was a lot less fearful about that. Today, I'm not so sure Iran and Syria aren't about to drive the region right off the cliff thru their machinations in Lebanon.
That's the tinderbox at the moment in case you haven't checked the news lately, a country without a president due to the very, very large Syrian-controlled and Iranian-controlled pro-Syrian minority refusing to compromise or even pick more than a single candidate. The biggest losers on the local level there might be the Maronite Christians for allowing themselves to be split by the pro-Western Sunnis and the pro-Syrian/Iranian Shi'ites, like Hezbollah.
On the international level, this thing in Lebanon could go south in so many ways it is ridiculous.
Posted by Brian Bell at November 24, 2007 08:37 AMWhat did Speaker Pelosi tell the Syrians to help promote peace in the area and the independence of Lebanon when she visited recently?
Brian, we agree on Lebanon, we got to get Iran and Syria out of Lebanon.
Posted by peter at November 24, 2007 09:36 AM"What did Speaker Pelosi tell the Syrians to help promote peace in the area and the independence of Lebanon when she visited recently?"
At least she went there. Hell, Dear Leader can't make an announced trip to Iraq without wetting his pants.
Posted by gay veteran at November 24, 2007 10:59 AMPeter said:
Brian, we agree on Lebanon, we got to get Iran and Syria out of Lebanon.
Mmmm, no, not really, Peter. I don't think we'd find ourselves agreeing on much at all.
Should Iran get out of there? And Syria, too? Sure, they should. Is it really our business? Well, no, it isn't our business, or it wouldn't be if we didn't have 150,000 troops nearby which ought not be there in the first place. It would be a better situation for us if it was simply a diplomatic interest for us, instead of part of some attempt on Bush and Cheney's parts to recreate some new-fangled version of "The Great Game" involving everything from the Lebanon through Afghanistan. It's just ridiculous in its overreach and we will pay a price for it. We already are, in fact. Even the idiot Reagan, or maybe the people around him, understood that we Americans do not have a strategic interest in Lebanon. Should it be a goal to get rid of Hezbollah, and Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanon? Sure, in a soft power kind of way, nothing we need overly worry about, though.
As for Israel -- not that you mentioned it but it always comes up in regards to Lebanon, for obvious reasons -- the strategic understanding there has always been that Israel takes care of itself, unless we have to pull them off the throats of some poor Arabs. If they've let their country get so soft that it can't or never could handle Hezbollah, in my opinion that's their problem, not our's. How many more bombs and planes do we need to sell them? They can't take on Hezbollah? It seems to me they are the ones letting down that side of their strategic understanding, not America dropping anything. America should not have to guarantee Israeli safety. And if it does, then we ought to be having a real national conversation about it.
As for Pelosi, why shouldn't she talk to whoever she wants to take to? It at least shows she is aware that not everything can be solved with brute force. Moreover, the White House approved that trip, Peter. The White House sandbagged her. I hope you don't think that's clever and instead recognize it for the dirty politics it is.
Posted by Brian Bell at November 24, 2007 12:09 PM"How long after Israel's founding was it before its peaceful neighbors launched their first war to destroy Israel?"
Ah, I love it when people keep coming back and hammering away at Israel's long-since-exploded founding myths!
"How many wars have Israel's peaceful neighbors started since then?"
One, exactly. In 1973 Egypt and Syria launched a war against Israel because all of their other efforts at securing the return of their territory, which Israel was illegally colonizing, and from which Israel was illegally taking resources (water from the Golan Heights, oil from the Sinai) had failed.
Every other war in Israel's history was started by Israel, and not for defense. 1958, Israel attacked Egypt, 1967, Israel attacked and invaded Egypt, then went on to attack and invade Jordanian and Syrian territory. 1982 Israel launched a completely unprovoked attack on Lebanon. 2006 Israel attacked Lebanon using the capture of two soldiers as a pretext for something it had been planning for months and months.
1948 was somewhat more complex, but the record shows that the Zionists intended to have a war in order to have a pretext for ethnic cleansing, and to increase their territory beyond what was granted to them in UNGA 181, and that they began the ethnic cleansing project in 1947. (In fact, the ethnic cleansing project began significantly before 1947 with the use of economic and other forms of isolation and terrorism against the indigenous Palestinian population.)
Posted by Shirin at November 24, 2007 02:03 PMNote that Hamas, whom the Palestinians chose in free and fair elections held at the insistence of the United States, is not invited to this silly conference. Not that the PLO, long officially held to be the representatives of the Palestinians, is also not invited.
So, the very people chosen by the Palestinians to represent them and their interests are not invited to a conference that is supposed to decide the fate of the Palestinians.
That should just about say it all, shouldn't it?
Posted by Shirin at November 24, 2007 02:07 PMPardon me Brian, I didn't place a period in the right place.
Brian, we agree on Lebanon,
Brian, we agree on Lebanon. Sorry.
As for your last paragraph, I asked "what", I wasn't condeming, though she did look foolish.
As far as the last conflict in the area in 2006, I believe Israel was fighting one handed. They didn't place their best foot forward.