A Failed Diplomacy?

Here's a not-so-warm-and-fuzzy but probably accurate take by Brett Stephens on why the Annapolis conference is going ahead: The Annapolis Fiasco

Henry Kissinger once observed that "when enough prestige has been invested in a policy it is easier to see it fail than abandon it." At the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., next week, the current secretary of state will illustrate her predecessor's point.

Comments

[Benjamin]

I also hold out very little hope but I do enjoy that warm fuzzy feeling.
Nine reasons Annapolis will succeed

[Lawrence]

this Burson guy at that clueless rag Haaretz (the link provided by Benjamin above) is insane and clueless and typifies the stupid Jew epidemic in Israel and the Diaspora that explains why we are going ahead with this suicide Munich agreement in the first place.

Israelinsider puts it best
http://web.israelinsider.com/views/12410.htm
by Frank Gafney Jr entitled "Gang Rape at Annapolis" and this one by Michael Freund entitled "Olmert in Peaceland"
http://web.israelinsider.com/views/12409.htm

why not just reopen the gates at Aushwitz and get it over with now. Bush is prepared to sell out Israel to placate the Muslim world, not that it will work but there you go. Olmert is Chameberlain and Rice a Quisling and Bush the mad hatter.

[Brett Chatz]

Annapolis will fail

Leadership is needed to achieve a lasting peace

As the leaders of 50 nations gathered in anticipation of the long-awaited peace deal between Israel and Palestine to be, an undercurrent of skepticism followed in its wake.

Israelis and Palestinians share a history of violence and bloodshed. The carnage that has befallen Israeli families has been thrust upon Palestinian families with equal measure.

What is left is an atmosphere of mistrust and a deep sense of foreboding.

On the one hand is the embattled Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. The man has taken beating after beating since he assumed office. Here is a man who has completely lost the faith of his people.

The Second Lebanon War was a political failure for Olmert. The war dragged on for too long and failed to oust the terrorist Hezbollah elements from southern Lebanon. Despite a clear victory for Israel, in terms of numbers of terrorist fighters killed, the cost of the war was dear.

Olmert failed to give the order for a rapid deployment of massive ground forces – a move that may well have ended the bloody conflict much sooner. Regardless, several resignations followed, including the Chief of Staff and high-ranking Knesset members.

Olmert survived, but barely. His administration has been racked by allegations of corruption, sexual harassment and malfeasance. Today he stands alone – a man at the helm of Israel’s top post, desperate to regain a semblance of dignity.

He has lost his right to lead by virtue of his blunders.

On the other hand is Israel’s negotiating partner – Mahmoud Abbas. As far as leadership goes, Abbas hardly qualifies. He is the embattled head of Fatah, an organization that still is considered Israel’s sworn enemy. Fatah has lost control of Gaza and by virtue of barring Hamas from the West Bank has taken control of government there.

The democratic elections in Gaza allowed Hamas to win a landslide victory. They promised to clean up the grossly inept and highly corrupt Fatah operation in Gaza. Bloody violence ensued and Hamas, a terrorist entity, ousted Fatah from the region. Today Gaza remains a Hamas stronghold. The West Bank is under the ‘semi-control’ of Fatah.

In terms of negotiations, Israel would prefer to negotiate with a united Palestinian leadership. That does not exist. Hamas renounces any peace talks with Israel. Both Fatah and Hamas do not recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist.

In terms of negotiation, it is pointless to negotiate with parties that have little support. It’s effectively Olmert and Abbas making overtures with one another, trying to win popular support that does not presently exist.

Israelis and Palestinians may well want peace, but they have yet to elect a leadership they have enough faith in to deliver on these expectations. Abbas and Olmert are not leaders of these two nations, in the sense that the people do not support them.

There are many hard issues that neither Abbas nor Olmert are likely to answer by the end of 2008. These include the recognized official boundaries of Israel and Palestine; the right of return for displaced Palestinians; the ceding of the Golan Heights back to Syria and all other pre-1967 boundaries. A highly contentious point is the issue of Jerusalem. Both camps seek to have Jerusalem as their capital yet compromise is needed to resolve the dilemma.

Israel desperately needs a lasting peace. That peace must come with security though. This means the full recognition of Israel as a sovereign Jewish State that will exist alongside an independent Palestinian state.

Hamas must be disbanded and a unified Palestinian leadership must be implemented. Total cessation of terrorist acts against Israel must cease and Israeli occupation must become a thing of the past.

These are pressing issues but without their resolution the peace process will not gain any momentum. Of equal importance is the issue of Palestinian education. Anti-Israel propaganda currently being taught in schools is fuelling the fires of hatred. A complete overhaul of these systems must take place in order that a lasting peace is given a fair chance.

While the dignitaries from Saudi Arabia and Syria may well appear to be welcome signs, it is doubtful that their measured optimism will spill over into the New Year.

All in all, it is safe to say that there is good intent, but what is needed is a bottom-up initiative, not a top-down blanket strategy.