Ralph Peters has weighed in on Annapolis with No Lasting Peace. (Judeopundit rightly credits it with having “with numerous Mark Steyn-style one-liners.”)
What happens in the course of Middle East “peace” talks under such circumstances? Whether the American administration is Republican or Democrat, it pressures Israel for concessions – since the Arabs won’t make any. Prisoner releases precede each summit; territorial handovers come under discussion.For their parts, Arab leaders and their representatives assume we’re sufficiently honored if they just show up. We hear no end of nonsense about the great political risks they’re taking, etc. We’re suckers for any fat guy in a white robe with an oil can.
Today’s session in Annapolis may or may not result in a we-the-undersigned statement or a few unenforceable commitments. And yes, there’s merit just in bringing folks together and keeping them talking. But the baseline difficulty is that we want to solve problems for people who don’t really want those problems solved.
Who doesn’t want the problem solved?
Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah Party, for example, couldn’t accept a genuine peace tomorrow morning – even though Hamas’ coup in Gaza has put them up against the wall. Their problem? The most successful jobs program in the Arab world has been Palestinian “resistance” to Israel.
In Context adds an insight to to Peters’ column
What Peters doesn’t say but certainly appears to understand is that Israel does want the problems solved — just not at the expense of her own annihilation. Understandable, you would think, as Israel is the party with the burgeoning First World hi-tech society just waiting for a respite from the terror and antipathy of her neighbors for a chance to show what she can really do. But it’s a hard sell, nonetheless. It’s far easier for many to believe that Israel has actually grown fond of the checkpoints, the fences, the reserve duty, the funerals and the “occupation.” Go figure.
Jack’s Shack emphasizes Peters’ point that the Bush administration seems to be copying the Clinton administration by seeking a legacy. Something, he observed earlier, is an awful motive for pursuing an foreign policy project of this magnitude.
On the other hand, JudeoPundit sees a difference
The one place I would quibble is the assumption that Bush is repeating Clinton’s failed legacy-quest. True, the determination to plow in such barren pastures begs for some sort of explanation, but I don’t think Bush is desperate for a legacy. If he is, the joke is on him, isn’t it? I think rather that Bush continues to follow his foreign-policy assumptions. He is convinced, as he has often said, that everyone, without exception, yearns for freedom and a better life. By all rights, the United States should be able to lead a movement for peace, freedom, and sanity. This would require, however, a unity of the left and right worldwide that is no more likely to come about than the Palestinians are to act in their own self-interest.
Seraphic Secret praises Peters for not being
seduced by the mass delusions of the State Department
.Meanwhile what’s really needed is a change of heart. This is something that PM Olmert was all too willing to accommodate without a reciprocal one from the other side.
UPDATE: via memeorandum
Excellent comments from PowerLine, Done with Mirrors, The New York Sun Jules Crittenden and others.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
