Olmert and Abbas embark for Annapolis conference

[sharonbn]

Olmert: Annapolis a momentous opportunity

Roni Sofer Published: 11.25.07, 01:52 / Israel News

"I hope the Annapolis conference allows us to launch serious negotiations that will resolve all the core problems and eventually lead us to a solution of two nations for the two peoples," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said late Saturday night just moments before taking off to the United States. The Israeli delegation to the US-led peace summit at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland also includes Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who will be traveling separately.

Jerusalem officials have warmly welcomed the recent decision made by the Arab League to endorse the conference and delegates from key Arab nations have already confirmed their attendance. As for Syria, sources have indicated that Damascus' final decision will be announced on Sunday.

Olmert broached the subject before leaving, saying that Israel has time and again expressed its willingness to have Syria join the Annapolis table. When asked about direct talks with Damascus, Olmert replied that "should the conditions for negotiations with Syria ripen – I would support such action. And I have said this countless times."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...475159,00.html

Abbas: I'm attending summit to realize Palestinians' dream

AFP Published: 11.25.07, 10:33 / Israel News

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas arrived in the United States late Saturday to take part in an international Middle East peace conference, scheduled to begin in Annapolis, Maryland this week.

A plane carrying the Palestinian leader touched down at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington at 23:30 pm (0430 GMT Sunday).

Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will top the guest list for Tuesday's meeting that will be opened by US President George W. Bush.

The negotiators are seeking to start negotiations for a Palestinian state living in peace with Israel.

"I am going to Annapolis in an effort to realize the dream of the Palestinian people for an independent state," Abbas told reporters aboard his plane.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...475243,00.html

Arab League will attend the conference

Officials in Jerusalem welcomed Friday evening the Arab League's decision to send its foreign ministers to next week's peace conference in Annapolis, adding that efforts toward drafting a joint document with the Palestinians would continue even after the delegations arrive in the US.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...474907,00.html

Syria says Golan Heights on Annapolis agenda

News agencies Latest Update: 11.23.07, 17:11 / Israel News

The United States has agreed to put the occupied Golan Heights on the agenda of the Annapolis peace conference, but Syria will decide whether to attend when it receives the schedule, Foreign Minister Walid Moualem said on Friday.

"The United States has sent confirmation that it will include the Syrian-Israeli track... The Golan... On the Annapolis schedule," the Syrian news agency quoted Moualem as saying.

There was no immediate comment from Washington.

The Damascus government has repeatedly said it would only attend the US-hosted conference, which aims to restart talks on Palestinian statehood, if the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967, are on the agenda.

Moualem was in Cairo for a meeting of Arab foreign ministers to prepare a common strategy for the Annapolis conference on Nov. 27. He said Syria learnt about the inclusion of the Golan through Arab ministers who contacted Washington about the issue.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...474865,00.html

[sharonbn]

Associated Press Latest Update: 11.25.07, 18:22 / Israel News

Syria will send its deputy foreign minister to the US-sponsored Middle East peace conference this week after the issue of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights was added to the agenda, the state-run news agency said Sunday.

SANA said Syria will be represented at the conference by Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad.

The decision was made ''after the Syria track was added to the conference agenda,'' confirmed the agency, but it did not say why it will not be the foreign minister attending like the other Arab participants.

Arab attendance at the Annapolis summit is seen as a victory for the US, which is hoping that broad Arab participation will help bring about an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Syria had said it will attend only if the conference discusses the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war and later annexed. Israel has signaled it is interesting in opening peace talks with Syria, but it wants the summit to focus on the Palestinian issue.

The decision not to send the foreign minister himself appears to indicate that it is not entirely confident the conference will address its concerns over the occupied Golan Heights.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...475452,00.html

[Mediocrates]

Column One: American folly
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST
November 23, 2007

The mood is dark in the IDF's General Staff ahead of next week's "peace" conference in Annapolis. As one senior officer directly involved in the negotiations with the Palestinians and the Americans said, "As bad as it might look from the outside, the truth is 10 times worse. This is a nightmare. The Americans have never been so hostile."

On Thursday a draft of the joint statement that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are discussing ahead of the conference was leaked to the media. A reading of the document bears out the IDF's concerns.

The draft document shows that the Palestinians and the Israelis differ not only on every issue, but differ on the purpose of the document. It also shows that the US firmly backs the Palestinians against Israel.

As the draft document makes clear, Israel is trying to avoid committing itself to anything at Annapolis. For their part, the Palestinians are trying to force Israel's hand by tying it to diplomatic formulas that presuppose an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines and an Israeli acceptance of the so-called "right of return" or free immigration of foreign Arabs to Israel.

The Palestinians are also trying to take away Israel's right to determine for itself whether to trust the Palestinians and continue making diplomatic and security concessions or not by making it the responsibility of outside parties to decide the pace of the concessions and whether or not the Palestinians should be trusted.

As the leaked draft document shows, the Americans have sided with the Palestinians against Israel. Specifically, the Americans have taken for themselves the sole right to judge whether or not the Palestinians and the Israelis are abiding by their commitments and whether and at what pace the negotiations will proceed.

But the Americans have shown themselves to be unworthy of Israel's trust. By refusing to acknowledge Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party's direct involvement in terrorism and indeed the direct involvement of his official Fatah "security forces" in terrorism, the Americans have shown that their benchmarks for Palestinian compliance with their commitments to Israel are not necessarily based on the reality on the ground. Then too, the US demands for wide-ranging Israeli security concessions to the Palestinians even before the "peace" conference at Annapolis have shown that Israel's security is of little concern to the State Department.

IDF sources blame the shooting murder of Ido Zoldan on Monday night by Fatah terrorists on Israel's decision to bow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's demand to take down 24 security roadblocks in Judea and Samaria. If it hadn't been for US pressure, they say, it is quite possible that the 29-year-old father of two small children would be alive today.

But this is of no concern for Washington. As Rice has made clear repeatedly, the US wants to see "signs of progress." Since the Palestinians are taking no action against terror and doing nothing to lessen their society's jihadist fervor, the only way to achieve "signs of progress" is by forcing Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians. And so that is exactly what Rice and her associates are doing.

Rice is able to force Israel to accept her demands because she faces the weakest Israeli leaders the country has ever produced. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are all incapable of standing up to the Americans or even arguing with them. Olmert's and Livni's weakness has been apparent since their mishandling of the war with Hizbullah last summer and their negotiations over the cease-ire agreement with Rice. For his part, throughout his brief and disastrous tenure as prime minister, Barak behaved as though he were then president Bill Clinton's employee.

BUT IF Olmert's, Livni's and Barak's willingness to compromise their nation's security is a function of their weakness, what explains Rice's and Bush's behavior? Why are they weakening Israel and pushing for the establishment of yet another Middle Eastern terror state? What US interest do they think they are advancing by acting as they are? Over the past several weeks, a number of theories have been raised to explain their behavior. The most frequent explanation is that Rice and Bush are championing Palestinian statehood at Israel's expense in a bid to mobilize a coalition of Sunni Arab states to cooperate with the US against Iran.

According to this theory, if Annapolis is seen as a success, then the Arab states will be convinced that the US is worth supporting on Iran. This theory has several flaws. First, as the US's treatment of Israel makes clear, success in Annapolis involves weakening Israel whose destruction Iran seeks and empowering the Palestinians whom Iran supports. This means that far from weakening Iran, success at Annapolis advances Iran's interests.

But beyond that, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by convening the conference next week, the Bush administration has directly empowered Iran. Today the determination of whether the administration emerges unscathed or humiliated from Annapolis is entirely in Iran's hands. Iran will decide whether the conference opens and closes peacefully or whether it is convened as Lebanon is submerged in civil war by Iran's proxies Syria and Hizbullah.

According to the Lebanese constitution, Saturday is the last day on which a new Lebanese president can be elected. Lebanon's president must be elected by two-thirds of the members of Lebanon's parliament. Through their campaign of assassination, Syria and Hizbullah have taken away the two-thirds majority that anti-Syrian forces won in the 2005 elections. As a result, Hizbullah has veto power over the election. And so far, Iran and Syria have refused to allow Hizbullah to back any candidate. This is the case despite the anti-Syrian majority's willingness to support a pro-Syrian presidential candidate.

Due to the Iranian-Syrian induced impasse, today there are two possible scenarios for what may happen in the next few days in Lebanon. Either Iran and Syria will allow elections to take place and an agent of their regimes and Hizbullah will take over the presidency, or elections will not take place and two governments - one anti-Syrian under Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and one pro-Syrian - will be formed. The pro-Syrian government will be supported by Hizbullah and the Lebanese army. The anti-Syrian government will be supported by Christian, Sunni and Druse militias. A civil war will ensue. Syria, Hizbullah and Iran will win.

In a bid to induce the first scenario, Bush has been lobbying every leader he can think of to appeal to Teheran and Damascus to relent and allow elections to go through. To this end, he even asked their primary arms supplier Russian President Vladimir Putin to intervene. Olmert's decision to allow Fatah security forces to receive 25 advanced Russian armored personnel carriers in spite of IDF objections was no doubt a consequence of Bush's appeal to Putin for help.

If the Americans believe the key to countering Iran is to build an anti-Iranian Arab coalition, the crisis in Lebanon shows just how futile their efforts are. Just as the Sunni Arab states oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, so they oppose Iranian control over Lebanon. Yet in spite of this, they have done nothing to prevent Iran and its proxies from taking control of the country. To the contrary, the Saudis have encouraged the Siniora government to support pro-Syrian candidates for the presidency.

[Mediocrates]

So if the administration has decided to embrace the Palestinians as a means of weakening Iran, its decision is wrong on three counts. First, given Iran's support for the Palestinians, empowering them against Israel simply advances Iran's interest. Second, the Annapolis conference has become a hostage of Iranian goodwill which is non-existent. And finally, even if it were formed, an anti-Iranian Arab coalition would be powerless to check Iran's power.

EVEN THOUGH the summit at Annapolis weakens the US's position vis-ÃÂ-vis Iran, it might still make sense for Bush and Rice to support Palestinian statehood if doing so enhanced public support for the administration. But the opposite is occurring. Bush's and Rice's seeming obsession with Palestinian statehood is being criticized from all sides of the aisle.

Critics on the left like New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and former Clinton negotiator and Palestinian apologist Robert Malley have expressed mystification at the administration's insistent advance of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians when there is no chance that those negotiations will bring peace. So too, over the past few weeks, four Republican presidential candidates - Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson - have criticized Bush's and Rice's Palestinian policies generally and the convening of the conference at Annapolis in particular.

There is also the theory that the pair's primary concern in pushing for Palestinian statehood is their legacies. Rice's stated intention of seeing a Palestinian state declared before Bush leaves office lends weight to this view. But of course, given that the maximum that Israel is willing to concede to the Palestinians is less than the minimum that the Palestinians are willing to accept, and given that the Olmert government will be brought down if Olmert agrees to any major concessions, it is clear that there is no chance that Rice will succeed.

Finally there is the thought that Rice and Bush understand that there is no chance of achieving peace, but that they think that their legacies will be strengthened just for having tried. After all, Bill Clinton is remembered well for his attempts to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians in spite of the fact that his attempts brought war rather than peace. But Clinton's example is no longer applicable because the conditions under which Clinton pursued peace were far different than those that exist today.

Clinton's peace policies caused a war that began only at the end of his presidency. Until then, they seemed like relatively safe and cost-free moves. On the other hand, Bush's presidency has occurred in its entirety against the backdrop of the Palestinian jihad. Every attempt he has made at peacemaking, from the Tenet Plan through the road map and Sharm e-Sheikh and onto Annapolis, has been blown apart through violence before it could get off the ground.

So then there is no good excuse for the Bush administration's decision to embrace the Palestinians at Israel's expense. It all comes down to Bush and Rice not thinking through the consequences of their moves.

It is a singular tragedy that Israel's elected leaders are too weak to make them understand that by harming Israel, they are harming the United States and making fools of themselves.

[varian]

Now all that's left to know on the "Road Map" is which railroad cars the men go in; which one the women and children go in; and where the chambers and ovens will be located. Bush and Rice don't seem to understand that only fools try to manipulate events in order to leave a "legacy," but then again, I guess that they fit the definition quite well. I had a feeling that the US was going to stab Israel in the back before all this "Road Map" garbage was over. As this administration continues to pressure Israel, the dollar continues to circle the drain. I know, some would claim that it has nothing to do with US/Israeli relations. Well then, just label me a skeptical, superstitious nut-job, because I believe that it does. Someone has predicted a nuclear exchange within the next thirteen months; I was thinking Pakistan and India were the most likely countries to fulfill that prediction, but soon after Annapolis, the exchange may be a little west of those countries. Doesn't Sam Cohen reside in Israel now?

[Mediocrates]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110010885

The Annapolis Fiasco
Condoleezza Rice's pointless Middle East conference.

BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:01 a.m.

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. "Annapolis," as it is spoken of in diplomatic circles, was conceived earlier this year by the Bush administration as a landmark conference that would revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and lead to a final settlement by January 2009. It was to be modeled on the Madrid conference of 1991, which brought Israeli leaders face-to-face with their Arab counterparts and, as it seemed at the time, created a new paradigm in the affairs of the Middle East. Back then, the idea was that the Iron Wall between the Jewish state and its neighbors could be brought down just as the Berlin Wall had. Today, the operative theory is that Israel's neighbors, fearful of Iran's growing regional clout, have a newfound interest in putting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to rest.

Nice theory--if only the locals would get with the concept. The Egyptians are openly skeptical about the conference, which they say lacks "an endgame." The Saudis, supposedly among the beleaguered and newly pliable Sunni powers, can hardly be bothered with Annapolis; even now it's unclear whether their foreign minister will attend. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has told the Saudis he would rather resign than attend a conference that achieves nothing. He fears Palestinians would "turn to Hamas after they see that Annapolis did not give them anything," according to an unnamed Palestinian official quoted in the Jerusalem Post.

Then there are the Israelis, who have even better reasons than the Sunnis to fear Iran. Yossi Beilin, architect of the 1993 Oslo Accords and a political dove, predicts not only that Annapolis will fail, but that its failure will "weaken the Palestinian camp, strengthen Hamas and cause violence." His political opposite, Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, calls Annapolis "dangerous" and warns that Israel risks giving away everything for nothing in return. Few Israelis take seriously the view that the creation of a Palestinian state offers a solution to their concerns about Iran. On the contrary, they fear that such a state would become yet another finger of the Islamic Revolution, just as Hezbollahstan is to their north in Lebanon, and Hamastan is to their south in Gaza.

No wonder, then, that as skepticism about Annapolis grows its perceived significance shrinks. What was originally billed as a conference is now being described by the State Department as a "meeting." What was originally envisaged as a three-day event has become a one-day event. There is, as of this writing, no firm list of participants. And there are whispers the date of the meeting may be pushed back, perhaps to December. As for the agenda, there isn't one. Substantive discussions have been ruled out. There was some hope that Israelis and Palestinians would agree to a joint "declaration of principles," but they could not come up with a common text. Now there's talk of issuing separate declarations, or doing without declarations altogether.

Among the principles sharply in dispute is whether Israel is a Jewish state. "We will not agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state," says Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, adding that "there is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined." Counters Mr. Olmert: "We won't have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people. Whoever does not accept this cannot hold any negotiations with me."

One would have thought the question of Israel's Jewishness was settled 60 years ago by a U.N. partition plan that speaks of a "Jewish state" some 30 times. (One would have thought, too, that Mr. Erekat would be mindful of his government's membership in the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference.) But the question hasn't been settled because Palestinians will not concede the "right" of their "refugees"--currently numbering in the millions--to return to their ancestral homes and farms in present-day Israel.

Despite nearly 20 years of trying, there is simply no finessing these differences. If Israel is not a Jewish state, it may as well be called Palestine. If the existential issues of 1948 cannot be resolved, there is little point in addressing the territorial issues of 1967, which are themselves almost impossible to address. Matters are not helped by the unusual political weakness of the key participants. In the last year, Mr. Abbas has lost half his kingdom. He will swiftly lose what remains of it the moment "Palestine" comes into being and the Israeli army isn't around to suppress Hamas as an effective fighting force. Mr. Olmert's governing coalition depends on two parties--the ultraorthodox Shas and ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu--which are opposed to any substantive concessions. The prime minister faces potential criminal indictments in multiple probes connected to his previous tenure as minister of trade and industry. A forthcoming official inquiry on last year's war in Lebanon will reportedly hold him accountable for the deaths of 33 soldiers. Ariel Sharon is still in a coma, but it's his successor who's really on life support.

Why, then, hold a conference at all? The short answer is that Condoleezza Rice demands one, and she has spent countless hours over eight mostly fruitless trips to the region this year trying to arrange it. But this hardly addresses the deeper mystery of why this administration has gotten itself caught in the Venus flytrap of the Arab-Israeli conflict, after vowing not to do so, and why it has done so with a degree of ineptitude that recalls the dimmer moments of the Carter administration. Maybe it's a matter of bureaucratic inertia. Or maybe it's about being seen to try. Or maybe it's the kind of fourth-quarter, fourth down Hail Mary pass that appeals to a secretary of state with a mania for football and a thin record of accomplishment. Then again, maybe it doesn't really matter.

But look on the bright side: Annapolis may yet serve us well as an object lesson in how diplomacy--the competent kind--just isn't done.

Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.

[Aliyah1995]

Among the principles sharply in dispute is whether Israel is a Jewish state. "We will not agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state," says Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, adding that "there is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined."

Oh sure, there is not one Muslim state in the world

[KettleWhistle]

This is just a repeat of the same old dreck we got from Slick Willy Clinton before that bastard was out of office. I watched Bolton give an interview to some news outlet not long ago and he said that there are far far more important issues out there than the Arab-Jewish conflict, which is certainly true. Why can't we have someone like this for President, and instead every a-hole out there thinks that they have to screw us over?

Meanwhile Abbas said that he "needs" E. Jerusalem. Well, no he does not. Nor does he have any reasonable claims to it. And any bastard in the Israeli government that would agree to something like that should just be shot. Like Rabin.

[farmall]

"And any bastard in the Israeli government that would agree to something like that should just be shot. Like Rabin."

There is certainly no reason to allow destruction of Israel by anyone, Israeli or not. An enemy is an enemy and no ethnic or religious commonalities should matter more than that.

[Mediocrates]

JOINT UNDERSTANDING READ BY PRESIDENT BUSH AT ANNAPOLIS CONFERENCE

November 27, 2007

Memorial Hall
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland

Released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary

PRESIDENT BUSH: The representatives of the government of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, represented respective by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and President Mahmoud Abbas in his capacity as Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and President of the Palestinian Authority, have convened in Annapolis, Maryland, under the auspices of President George W. Bush of the United States of America, and with the support of the participants of this international conference, having concluded the following joint understanding.

We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis. In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements.

We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008. For this purpose, a steering committee, led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party, will meet continuously, as agreed. The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party. The first session of the steering committee will be held on 12 December 2007.

President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert will continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis to follow up the negotiations in order to offer all necessary assistance for their advancement.

The parties also commit to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 -- this is called the road map -- and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the road map.

The parties further commit to continue the implementation of the ongoing obligations of the road map until they reach a peace treaty. The United States will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitment of both sides of the road map. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States.

For full text of joint understanding, Including President Bush's remarks

[sharonbn]

Roni Sofer
Published: 11.29.07, 00:26 / Israel News

WASHINGTON - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Israeli reporters in Washington Wednesday that Israel would not make any concessions unless the Palestinians comply with the US-backed Road Map for peace.

"This condition was stressed in the joint declaration and it is accepted by both the Americans and Palestinians," he said a day after the Annapolis peace conference.

The prime minister said he believed the vast majority of the Israeli public would support "painful" concessions for peace, adding that he believed the Knesset would also back such a move.

"There is complete agreement on the distinction between the agreement we wish to implement by the end of 2008 and the actual ability to see it through," he said.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...476949,00.html