Gag. That about sums it up.
Love how all those photo opps don’t seem to feature Olmert and Abbas together. Smirk.
Great post Bernhard.
I do believe this charade is pretty well exposed as being just that — a sham. It’s enough to say that the invitations were sent out just a day or so ago to forty-nine countries for a conference that begins in 5 days and lasts for 2.5… doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know about whether it can succeed??????? No wonder there is nothing on the agenda but photo ops.
If that is not enough, then see this from the same piece:

Nimer Hammad, diplomatic adviser to Abbas, said Tuesday it was unlikely the two sides had drafted a joint document, and said that at the end of the summit, the two sides would present separate statements reflecting their respective views on the peace process.
“Not achieving an agreed joint statement suggests there is a major problem,” Hammad told the press in Ramallah yesterday.
“We will travel there [to Annapolis] to declare that we insist on our rights,” he added.

History will, in the end, deliver the verdict.

Posted by: Bea | Nov 21 2007 13:34 utc | 3

The One State Solution seems inevitable, reasonable, humane, and fair. No wonder why so many frustrated youths are supporting its platform.
Therefore the Cheney Adminstration will label it as a terrorist organization and will have the Moonie Washington Times, Faux News, and the Editorial Page of the Wall Street Journal call for military action. Let the water boarding begin!

Posted by: Diogenes | Nov 21 2007 14:35 utc | 5

Uri Avneri: How to Get Out?

The Annapolis conference is a joke. Though not in the least funny.
Like quite a lot of political initiatives, this one too, according to all the indications, started more or less by accident. George Bush was due to make a speech. He was looking for a theme that would give it some substance. Something that would divert attention away from his fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something simple, optimistic, easy to swallow.
Somehow, the idea of a “meeting” of leaders to promote the Israeli-Palestinian “process” came up. An international meeting is always nice – it looks good on television, it provides plenty of photo-opportunities, it radiates optimism. We meet, ergo we exist.
So Bush voiced the idea: a “meeting” for the promotion of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Without any preceding strategic planning, any careful preparations, anything much at all.
That’s why Bush did not go into any details: no clear aim, no agenda, no location, no date, no list of invitees. Just an ethereal meeting. This fact by itself testifies to the lack of seriousness of the entire enterprise….
THE MAJESTIC mountain seems to be getting smaller and smaller by the minute. It’s against the laws of nature: the closer we get to it, the smaller it seems. What looked to many like a veritable Mt. Everest first turned into an ordinary mountain, then into a hill, and now it hardly looks like an anthill. And even that is shrinking, too.
First the participants were to deal with the “core issues”. Then it was announced that a weighty declaration of intentions was to be adopted. Then a mere collection of empty phrases was proposed. Now even that is in doubt.
Not one of the three leaders is still dreaming of an achievement. All they hope for now is to minimize the damage – but how to get out of a situation like this?
As usual, our side is the most creative at this task. After all, we are experts in building roadblocks, walls and fences. This week, an obstacle larger then the Great Wall of China appeared.

Ehud Olmert demanded that, before any negotiations, the Palestinians “recognize Israel as a Jewish state”.

He was followed by his coalition partner, the ultra-right Avigdor Liberman, who proposed staying away from Annapolis altogether if the Palestinians do not fulfill this demand in advance.

And he continues, exposing the condition for the ploy that it was:
The Palestinians are not required to recognize the state of Israel. After all, they have already done so in the Oslo agreement – in spite of the fact that Israel has yet to recognize the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own based on the Green Line borders.
No, the government of Israel demands much more: the Palestinians must now recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”.
Does the USA demand to be recognized as a “Christian” or “Anglo-Saxon state”? Did Stalin demand that the US recognize the Soviet Union as a “Communist state”? Does Poland demand to be recognized as a “Catholic state”, or Pakistan as an “Islamic state”? Is there any precedent at all for a state to demand the recognition of its domestic regime?
The demand is ridiculous per se. But this can easily be shown by analysis ad absurdum.
What is a “Jewish state”? That has never been spelled out. Is it a state with a majority of Jewish citizens? Is it “the state of the Jewish people” – meaning the Jews from Brooklyn, Paris and Moscow? Is it “a state belonging to the Jewish religion” – and if so, does it belong to secular Jews as well? Or perhaps it belongs only to Jews under the Law of Return – i.e. those with a Jewish mother who have not converted to another religion?
These questions have not been decided. Are the Palestinians required to recognize something that is the subject of debate in Israel itself?
According to the official doctrine, Israel is a “Jewish and democratic state”. What should the Palestinians do if, according to democratic principles, some day my opinion prevails and Israel becomes an “Israeli state” that belongs to all its citizens – and to them alone? (After all, the US belongs to all its citizens, including Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, not to mention “Native-Americans”.)
The sting is, of course, that this formula is quite unacceptable to Palestinians because it would hurt the million and a half Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. The definition “Jewish state” turns them automatically into – at best – second class citizens. If Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues were to accede to this demand, they would be sticking a knife in the backs of their own relatives.
Olmert & Co. know this, of course. They are not posing this demand in order to get it accepted. They pose it in order that it not be accepted. By this ploy they hope to avoid any obligation to start meaningful negotiations.

Posted by: Bea | Nov 21 2007 17:38 utc | 7

as avneri says, annapolis is a cruel & sinister joke for a vaudeville routine that will end with an illegal war against iran

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 21 2007 18:46 utc | 9

Haartez has List of invitees to the U.S.-hosted Middle East peace conference in Annapolis
It includes the Arab league states, the “quartet” etc. But it also includes a bunch of countries that have absolutly nothing to do with the whole issue.
Can someone explain why

# Brazil
# Greece
# India
# Norway
# Poland
# Slovenia
# South Africa
# Spain
# Sweden

are invited? And why isn’t Micronesia on the list?

Posted by: b | Nov 22 2007 9:14 utc | 11

b, you forgot to mention China — they’ve RSVP’d with a “yes.” Syria, on the other hand, has declined.
Three random thoughts before I go back to making pumpkin pies:
(1) I would imagine that some of those countries are on the list for economic reasons; recall that there is one of those famous “donors’ conferences” scheduled for mid-December in Paris, just exactly like what happened with Lebanon. Some of the countries on that list have big pockets when it comes to aid for the Palestinians, and that may be the ultimate aim (you know, the “put-food-in-their-stomachs-and-then-they-will-shut-up-about-asking-for-political-rights-
that-Israel-won’t-ever-agree-to-acknowledge” approach to resolving the conflict; or perhaps it is another case of the “shock doctrine” in action).
(2) With so many countries around the table, no wonder it’s all photo ops — there won’t even be time for each country to make a brief opening statement before it’s time to move to the closing ceremonies, LOL.
(3) Paradoxically, however, this approach could work to strengthen the Palestinians’ hand in that they can bring the power of the world to bear against Israel and it helps balance somewhat the overwhelming power asymmetry in any one-on-one negotiating situation between the two parties (which is primarily why Israel always preferred NOT to internationalize the negotiations like this but to resolve it piecemeal with one country at a time).

Posted by: Bea | Nov 22 2007 14:11 utc | 13

Thanks for the link, Bea #14, but that has to be the most depressing “document”. Are these countries really going to participate in this?
With things coming to a head in Lebanon, the outlook is very bleak indeed.

Posted by: ww | Nov 22 2007 17:18 utc | 15

This Haaretz piece seems to be from a few days ago but it definitely belongs on this thread:
Think of Annapolis as a Big Party

“The president of the United States has no desire to call people together for a photo-op,” Rice promised earlier this year. But Annapolis came to be just that: a photo-op. “The importance of Annapolis must not be exaggerated but also not underemphasized,” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday, “because President Bush and many nations are sponsoring this broad meeting.” In other words, the host, not what happens, is what makes the summit important.
This will be a big party. Between 40 and 50 foreign ministers will show up. Why are they coming? The answer given by Olmert applies to them all: because they were invited. No one wants to be seen as an obstacle, no one wants to snub the U.S. effort. Not after spending so much time criticizing the Bush administration for not doing enough on this issue. But no one realistically expects that the meeting will have a lasting impact on the future of peace negotiations.
In this context, the meeting has already been declared a failure by many observers. But there’s no reason to give up the search for signs of possible, if modest, success. After all, the less ambitious the agenda, the greater the chance that it will be a success.
It all comes down to the questions every host asks: Did I get a good turnout? Who came? Did they look nice? Did they mingle? Were they happy? (The food will not be an issue on this occasion.) In Annapolis, the questions will be things like: Will the Saudis send their foreign minister or just the ambassador to Washington, a lower-level representative with no royal blood? Will he shake the hand of an Israeli? Will he smile at Olmert?
The Saudis’ participation is key to a “successful” event. They will be the center of attention, the life and soul of the party. They know that they’re the guests of honor, and they’ve played their hand smartly. Every gesture they make, every word they utter will be analyzed in great detail. A friendly mien might hint that an important Arab country is ready to start the process of reconciliation with Israel. A cold shoulder would be a blow to Israel’s hopes and to the Bush administration’s prestige, but, more importantly, it would also be a sign that the Saudis are not ready to commit to Abbas and his Palestinian Authority.
Amazingly enough, on Monday evening the invitations had still not been sent out, but the State Department was adamant in its insistence that “there will be a positive reaction.” This means that the party preparations are complete. The host (Bush), the DJ (Rice), the time (Tuesday), and the venue (Annapolis) are all set. Abbas and Olmert, the main guests, just need to respond the way President Truman responded to the invitation to his own inaugural festivities: “Weather permitting, I hope to be present.”

Posted by: Bea | Nov 24 2007 13:16 utc | 17

US Push on Palestinians Has Iran Motive

Posted by: Bea | Nov 25 2007 5:00 utc | 19

Henry Siegman in the NY Review of Books: The Cost of Failure

An agreement that leads to the end of an occupation that with the best of intentions humiliates and brutalizes an entire nation should be more than enough of a reason to go for it. The subjugation and permanent dispossession of millions of people is surely not the vocation of Judaism, nor is it an acceptable condition for a Jewish national revival….
If Annapolis fails, it will be because of Israel’s rejection of the single most central condition for success: full disclosure of its definition of viable Palestinian statehood. Olmert has already reneged on his earlier endorsement of Rice’s insistence that the meeting must produce a joint statement outlining a permanent status agreement to avoid becoming a meaningless photo op, and it remains unlikely that any meaningful joint declaration can be reached.
According to Aluf Benn, Ha’aretz’s diplomatic correspondent, Olmert is adept at marching “in the no-man’s land between talk and action.” For Olmert, Benn says, engaging in high-level talks and granting gestures to the Palestinians creates “the most convenient diplomatic situation,” because such gestures are “in themselves sufficient to remove international pressure on Israel to withdraw from the territories and to end the occupation.” At the same time, “as long as it’s all talk and there are no agreements,” internal pressures not to cede the territories are neutralized. Olmert seems to have succeeded in turning Annapolis into that kind of no-man’s land.
The Cost of Failure
….More important, should Annapolis fail, prospects for resuming a viable peace process at some future date will be made increasingly unlikely by the changing demographic balance in Palestine. A clear Arab majority in historic Palestine, a situation that is imminent, will persuade Palestinians and their leaders that the quest for a two-state solution is a fool’s pursuit. They may conclude that rather than settling for even less than 22 percent of Palestine—i.e., less than half the territory that the international community confirmed in the 1947 Partition Resolution of the UN is the legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population—it would be better to renounce separate Palestinian statehood and instead demand equal rights in a state of Israel that includes all of Palestine. Why settle for crumbs now if as a result of their decisive majority they will soon become the dominant political and cultural force in all of Palestine?
If the international community has been largely indifferent to—or impotent to do anything about—what some have tried to portray as a quarrel between Israel and Palestinians over where to draw the border between the two, it is far less likely to remain indifferent to an Israel intent on permanently denying its majority Arab population the rights and privileges it accords to its minority of Jewish citizens. It would be an apartheid regime that, one hopes, a majority of Israelis would themselves not abide.

Posted by: Bea | Nov 25 2007 5:14 utc | 21

Too funny to pass up, considering it’s just a side show for the Goopers, then will blow the roof off of Syria, Lebanon (and eventually Iraq, post-surge, once Muqtada al-Sadr comes back from R&R with truckloads of Rushki and Paki arms and ordinance), because it was meant to fail, be blamed on Fatah, Hamas and by feint implication, Hezbollah, as a pretext for Israel to go in under UN sanctions to “restore order”, and in doing so, ethnically cleanse the resistance that drove Israel out in 2006.
The Israeli attack on Syria was a fall-back save-face to the failed attack on Iran, after their plan to smuggle nuclear cruise missiles out of Wilmot ND failed publicly.
The US two-state, two-day conference is an in-your-face pretext setter for invasion of Lebanon, same as the runup in 2003, and with the same CAH slaughter to follow.
That will kick off al-Sadr, Joshua at the Green Zone walls, trumpeting with IED’s, the surge reversed, more shock and awe, more “Iranian covert support” and another
run at smuggling nuclear arms to Israel, who are only too glad to use them on Iran,
as long as the tell-tale evidence and radioactive metal shards say “Made in USA”.
Honest to G-d, somebody please teach these cracker-heads how to play chess, instead of checkers, every move telegraphed in advance. Anyway, now we return to our show:
“How about a no-state solution. We have Walt Disney World run Israel on behalf of the United Nations. Everyone — Jews, Christians, and Muslims — leaves and a giant theme park is put up. Everyone comes for the day and goes on the rides and then everyone leaves at night. There could be a monorail that goes into Syria and Lebanon and out to some docks where cruise ships would be parked. The mascots could be Mordechai Mouse and Abdul Duck.”
— Posted by Dave Wallack

Posted by: Peris Troika | Nov 26 2007 5:27 utc | 23

Asia Times: Iran: The Uninvited Guest at Peace Summit

Tuesday’s Arab-Israeli peace summit in Annapolis, Maryland, is supposed to be about resolving long-standing Palestinian issues, the Golan Heights, and other contentious matters. But, increasingly, it is framed in the United States and Israeli media as a dual-purpose conference, the other being the containment of Iran.
Thus, an editorial in the Jerusalem Post writes that “the process that Annapolis seeks to launch will be inherently conditional on Western success against the Iranian challenge … The idea that holding an Arab-Israeli peace summit would be a setback for Iran is a valid one.” The more liberal Ha’aretz went even further by stating the goal of the Annapolis conference to be the formation of a “global coalition against Iran”.
Similarly, in the US a number of pundits have painted Annapolis as a “means of sorts of cementing a coalition against Iran and its allies”, to paraphrase Tamar Cofman Wittes of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. According to Cofman and a host of media pundits paraded on American television news programs, Annapolis is President George W Bush’s wakeup call to the world on the “Iran threat”.

This fascinating and important piece goes on to describe in great detail how diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue are bearing fruit, and how the US is not happy about that. Anyone assessing developments at Annapolis must view them within this larger context.

Posted by: Bea | Nov 26 2007 16:32 utc | 25

Not so subtile use of Shakespeare in a Washington Post headline about the atmosphere in the city of Annapolis: Much Ado Before Summit

Officially, the rally at the gate belonged to Shalom International, a group opposed to peace talks for fear they will weaken Israel. But only a small group of protesters, about 15, showed up.
“It’s like a practice run, like foreplay before the real deal tomorrow,” said the group’s leader, Bob Kunst.
Within minutes of launching its morning rally, however, the group was outnumbered and overwhelmed by a pack of more than two dozen news cameras and reporters.
…
Like the dignitaries, security teams and local commuters, the protesters were still fine-tuning their plans for today. “We’ve talked to 50 media guys already,” Kunst said last night. “We’re totally exhausted, and the conference hasn’t even started yet.”

Posted by: b | Nov 27 2007 7:44 utc | 27

This conference is a probably a junket Bush allowed so Condi could have some sunshine. He doesn’t even have the dignity to listen …
Bush to open Mideast conference, but won’t stay for discussion

President Bush, who’s largely ignored the risky business of Middle East peacemaking throughout his nearly seven years in office, will take center stage Tuesday at the international peace conference he’s hosting in Annapolis, Md.
He won’t remain there for long, however. Bush plans to head back to the White House after delivering his opening speech to the diplomats and dignitaries at the U.S. Naval Academy, and while surprises are always possible, White House aides said he wasn’t planning to offer new American proposals to resolve the conflict.

Posted by: b | Nov 27 2007 14:54 utc | 29

al jazeera asks again & again what will happen in annapolis
missing the point
the only thing that will happen in annopolis is that the people of palestine will be spat in the face & the arab world will stay busy but keep quiet
we live in monstrous times

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 27 2007 15:11 utc | 31

The BBC analyst in Annapolis talked of the many concessions in Olmert’s speech. It may be true, but all the concessions mentioned were from the Palestinian side, what they should concede.
Both Bush and Olmert mentioned the “Jewish State”, they will help Abbas be rid of his terrorist problem, no “new” settlements, get rid of the “outposts”, borders are not so important as government “institutions” (that the world community will help with). Olmert talked of doing everything in his power to get his hostages back “from the terrorists”. Abbas told his people to “stay positive”.
Same old, same old. BBC guy thought it was a “great beginning”. My feeling is that Gaza is in for tough times soon.

Posted by: ww | Nov 27 2007 17:55 utc | 33