[ETWolverine]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is the point of the Annapolis peace talks that will be taking place this week between Israel, and the Palestinians?

The stated goal of the talks is to jumpstart the stalled Israeli/Palestinian peace process.

But let's look at the parties involved in the talks.

Ehud Olmert - the PM of Israel, who has only weak support from his constituents and approval ratings lower than George Bush's.

Mahmoud Abbas - the official PM of the Palestinian Authority, but only controlling half of the PA, and that half shakily at best. He and his Fatah party do not speak for a large segment of his "constituency" and Hamas refuses to have anything to do with the talks. Even if a breakthrough is made, can Abbas hold up his end of any deal if he doesn't have the support of half the country?

Syria - what do they have to do with the Israeli/PA talks? And why are they insisting that the disposition of the Golan Heights be a part of the talks? What does the Golan Heights have to do with the PA?

Saudi Arabia - Why are they involved, and why are they are making big noises about what the agenda must include ("all core issues" including the "status" of Jerusalem and the "borders" of Israel and Israeli settelements)? Who are they to dictate anything with regards to Israel and the PA, and why are they even party to the talks?

China, Russia, the UN, the EU, etc. - What? What's their interest in these talks? Other than being there to pressure Israel into actions it has no intention of taking, that is.

Given the parties involved, the conflicting agendas, and the political climate in both Israel and the PA right now, what's the point? What will this accomplish other than "face time" for these parties?

As I understand it, Abbas and Olmert have been quitely meeting with each other since June for the purpose of setting the agenda ahead of the meeting in Annapolis. And as I understand it, those meetings have been amiable, if not always agreeable. So why not just let Abbas and Olmert continue meeting in private and work out the issues for themselves? Why make this whole production, with 40 attendees, most of whom have nothing to do with issues between Israel and the PA?

What's the point?

Elliot

[tomder55]

You missed excon's rant on Annapolis last week because he failed to post it as a question

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/member...is-153707.html

Here was my reply :

The world expects the US to continue to broker these fantasies. So what is a US President to do ? It is SOP to have a meaningless middle eastern peace conference in the twilight time of a presidency.

Clinton's last ditch attempt at Camp David produced the 2nd Intifada . This Hail Mary pass at Annapolis will produce nothing meaningful . It will be the same BS the Wye River Accord. The Palestinians will not recognize Israel's right to exist and the Israelis say the right of return is a non-starter.Peace is not on anyone's agenda . There is nothing to broker . But the world expects US leadership anyway.

Look at the silly Baker-Hamilton Iraq surrender report .That even tried to link all the events in the ME to the Palestinian question . But the world refuses to understand that the Palestinians' don't want a 'settlement. They're not ready to deal with schools and roads and sewers and water supply and sanitation. Gaza proved that . If there's an agreement with Israel then they run out of reasons to blame others for their woeful existence.

I have some additions .

Perhaps since both Olmert and Abbas are weak they can be pressured to accept some settlement to be violated at a later date that would pad President Bush's legacy.

Perhaps the Arab States like the Saudis find common ground with Israel in that they face a growing threat from the Mahdi-hatter . An enemy of my enemy etc. So they are more inclined to participate in a game of charades.

Syria?? I think their presence there has something to do with a quid pro quo involving US and Israeli silence over the Sept attack on their nuclear facility . But I could also be sold on the idea that they are there with their hat out expecting a payday.

Let's face it . This is a one day conference without a formal agenda. The optimist would say that it could jump start a new round of negotiations and that nations like Saudi Arabia being there lends it a degree of legitimacy . But that is a real stretch and only the minds at foggy bottom could pretend anything positive would come of it. I am really disappointed in how Condi has run State.

[Dark_crow]

Hi Elliot

Nobody is sure yet who will be attending. The biggest problem is the weakness of Abbas and Olmert. Only an optimist can expect anything good out of it except to say Bush can say he tried.

[tomder55]

It really is a disgrace that Syria will be there especially with all the turmoil they have caused in Lebanon. Assad is a terrorist enabler and should be treated as such . He has no place at the table of respectable nations.

[ETWolverine]

I can see Condi or Bush telling the Syrian envoy to "shut the @*%$ up or we'll tell the world what it is that Israel bombed in September". But then why invite them in the first place, except as a show. That's what I really think this Annapolis talk is going to be; a one-day political show.

Tom, Condi doesn't run Foggy Bottom. Foggy Bottom is run by the career bureaucrats. Condi is to be applauded for not falling into the trap of becoming an out-and-out liberal and outspoken Arabist as every other SecState in the past 20 years has become... including Colin Powel, who I once had respect for. Nothing less than a nuke at Foggy Bottom is going to change how business is done there... and I'm not 100% sure about a nuke being all that effective.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

What's the point? Depends on who you ask. For Bush it is a chance for all "to redouble their efforts to turn dreams of peace into reality." To The Mahdi Hatter, "it is only for supporting the Zionists occupiers," and Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, "to compensate for some of the failures of the illegitimate usurper Zionist regime."

The Toronto Star says it's to Give Blair a chance to broker peace, and Scott Macleod of Time apparently thinks the point is getting Saud al-Faisal to shake Olmert's hand.

In other words there's not much of a point to this at all. It's funny though, everyone is chastising Bush for his hands-off approach to ME peace, after all these years of telling him to stay out of other country's affairs.

[tomder55]

A single Palestinian state as an entity has already been bypassed by events. The new reality is that there are 2 distinct Palestinian territories now in Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas controls Gaza and Fatah controls the West Bank . Despite threats by both sides to assert themselves in each other's space ,the truth is that now the 2 Palestinian territories have as much in common as Pakistan and East Pakistan before it became Bangladesh .Like it or not they are 2 separate entities and if there are to be negotiations for a settlement they would have to be dealt with individually .

I'm sure Israel knows how the exploit this division.(if run by an effective government .I'm amazed Olmert is still around after the Lebanon debacle ) Their best bet is to negotiate with Abbas and to isolate as much as possible Hamas. (Saudi Arabia is at the conference because they provide so much funding for Hamas . Bush and Condi hope they will pressure Hamas to back off. They may just do that because they have become a little wary of the Frankenstein they created by funding the radical jihadist movement)

But the Israelis and the Abbas controlled Palestinians are more than capable of dealing on their own . They don't need the rest of the world watching over them ;pressuring them ,and breathing down their neck. In fact ;the Israelis believe that the US is putting unreasonable demands on the Israelis and are weakening their negotiation position.
World Tribune — Israeli officials fear Bush reversal on security, territory as Annapolis talks near

There is an opportunity for a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian relations(although I don't know how the Jerusalem question can be resolved ) ;but I think it would come more quick if the rest of the invitees just butted out.

[excon]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is the point of the Annapolis peace talks that will be taking place this week between Israel, and the Palestinians?

Hello El:

For the first time in your life, you're not missing a thing. Me? I haven't been able to figure out what the dufus in chief is doing for a few years now.

excon

[tomder55]

Iran said on Tuesday that it had invited Palestinian militant factions to a meeting in Tehran aimed at countering a US-hosted Middle East peace conference seeking to kickstart the peace process.
"These groups are planning to come to Tehran within the next week or two and they are all the Palestinian groups that are struggling for the freedom of their land," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.

Iran is one of the most vocal backers of Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and pledged millions of dollars in 2006 to the then Hamas government crippled by a Western aid cut.

The Islamic republic does not recognise Israel and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has provoked outrage by calling for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.

Elham indicated the Tehran meeting would be a riposte to the conference bringing together Israeli and Palestinian leaders which started in Annapolis outside Washington on Tuesday.

"It means that the Annapolis conference is not representing the Palestinians and not talking on their behalf, but on the contrary is moving against their rights," he said.

More than a dozen Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran's top regional ally Syria, have sent representatives, leaving Tehran conspicuously isolated.

On Monday Ahmadinejad told Saudi King Abdullah in a telephone call that he "wished" the kingdom was not taking part in the peace conference.

Tehran's arch foe Washington, which is hosting the meeting, dismissed the Iranian criticism as "not surprising," and charged that Tehran backs the extremists sidelined by the talks.

Iran to host militants for 'alternative' Mideast meet

[BABRAM]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is the point of the Annapolis peace talks that will be taking place this week between Israel, and the Palestinians?


Elliot

There will be plenty of close up camera shots focused on ceremonious handshakes and days filled with boring long winded hollow speeches, but if you look closely behind the curtains, the PA delegation will break out the old 1968 PLO charter that demanded the annihilation of Israel and proceed to have an autograph session. Anytime the PA leadership shows up on a world stage I think of it as free acting lessons. So just relax in your favorite recliner, start noshing, and prepare to be amused.



Bobby

[Dark_crow]

President Bush has said “things have changed,” and just about everyone has too; but what has changed. Well let's see, Hamas is a democratically elected power in Palestine, Iranian trained Hezbollah is stationed on Israel's northern border and Iran boosts of a nuclear bomb. Today, they've got ever-longer range missiles that can reach Israel and beyond. Hezbollah is now the power in democratic Lebanon and guess what; the Saudi's still refuse to shake hands with the Israeli's.

Yep, things have changed.

[Choux]

Bush needs the photo-op so he will have pictures for his scrapbook.

[ETWolverine]

President Bush has said “things have changed,” and just about everyone has too; but what has changed. Well let’s see, Hamas is a democratically elected power in Palestine, Iranian trained Hezbollah is stationed on Israel’s northern border and Iran boosts of a nuclear bomb. Today, they’ve got ever-longer range missiles that can reach Israel and beyond. Hezbollah is now the power in democratic Lebanon and guess what; the Saudi’s still refuse to shake hands with the Israeli’s.

Yep, things have changed.

Excellent analysis.

Additionally, the two main parties to the talks, Olmert and Abbas, are both in political trouble back home. There's a better-than-average chance that Abbas won't live long enough to see any future meeting (Hamas REALLY hates him), and Olmert might not survive a no-confidence vote. Even if he does, there's a good chance of him being implicated in certain bribery-related crimes in Israel that would make him a lame-duck at best and put him out of office and in jail at worst. So, yes, things have changed... but what have they changed to?

Elliot