James Forsyth’s view of the prospects for the Annapolis peace conference make a good deal more sense than making comparisons to Munich. The Economist also thinks it will probably lead to very little. Bret Stephens is pretty clearly vehemently opposed to the idea, but at least grants that the gathering, or meeting, or whatever it is, is “pointless.” That is why the crazed reaction of Melanie Phillips (linked above) that talks of the “betrayal of the Jewish people” is particularly bizarre. You can’t betray an entire people with a photo-op, no matter how freighted with significance it is supposed to be. Granted, Ms. Phillips has been getting awfully agitated of late about Annapolis and Israel, but what puzzles me is why she is so bothered by a conference that will almost certainly change nothing at all. Cal Thomas joins the chorus that the conference represents the “selling out” of Israel, which is absurd. Andy McCarthy’s objections to the participation of the Syrians may be misguided, but at least it has a certain coherence by comparison.
McCarthy and Phillips seem to agree that Syria’s participation renders the Bush Doctrine void, which would have to be a relief for sane people everywhere. A foreign policy doctrine that insists that Syria is our mortal foe makes no sense. To the extent that this conference helps weaken this idea about Syria, it may have done some good after all. If it finally drives home the obvious–Secretary Rice really doesn’t know what she’s doing–we might be grateful for the clarification.
1 comment
Comments feed for this article
November 27th, 2007 at 5:12 am
p.lukasiak
What I find most worrisome about this Annapolis dog-and-pony show is that it is clearly not about achieving peace at all. Rather it is about further isolating Iran - and considering Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran must be considered a far more important player than most of the “Arab” states — not to mention the roster of other nations and NGOs — who have been invited.
It is also about discredition Hamas, and legitimizing the Abbas coup d’etat government. Lets face it, Abbas doesn’t have the power to agree to anything in these talks, because his Presidency (and Party) was clearly repudiated in the elections last January when Hamas won a majority in the Palestiniian parliament. Abbas will probably give away the store, but there will be sufficient opposition to any deal that Abbas might reach among the West Bank Palestinians (let alone those in the Gaza Strip) to make implementation of any deal impossible — and further intra-Palestinian violence almost inevitable.
In other words, no actual good can come out of this, but it has the potential to lead to further bloodshed in the area. But those factors aren’t important — all that matters is that after seven years of the incredibly stupid ‘hands-off’ policy, Bush wants to look like he actually cares about an Israel-Palestine peace. No doubt the GW Bush Presidential Library will have a whole wall devoted to this meeting, and all the luminaries that show up — but that is the only thing that will be built in Annapolis today.