Friday, November 30, 2007

Annapolis's sole purpose is to serve the Bush agenda


By Adrian Hamilton
The Independent | Published: November 29, 2007

There can have been few more excruciating sights than President Bush parading the Israeli and Palestinian leaders before the cameras at the Annapolis summit on Tuesday, clasping their hands, squeezing their shoulders, pushing them together for a handshake and then leaving them to return to their seats like awkward boys summoned to the podium to be congratulated for their efforts at a school prizegiving.

But then that was only right for the occasion. Why were President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert there in the first place, if not because the White House had propelled them there with not an iota of prior agreement between them? And why did their joint statement of intent single out the end of 2008 as the time by which they hoped to reach a peace settlement? Because that is when President Bush will be leaving office.

Keep reading . . .

1 comment:

William deB. Mills said...

Palestine is divided, the legally elected government overthrown and marginalized in Gaza – undercut from the moment it won the election and forced out, castigated for a virtual civil war outsiders worked very hard to foment, and alienated from the very political process it had formerly been criticized for rejecting.

Now, with the Palestine government and people utterly humiliated, Israeli guns and helicopters killing Palestinians as the conference convenesconvened and immediately afterwards, and the sight of Fatah police beating up Palestinians exercising their democratic right to protest, exactly what are the Palestinian people to make of the party in Annapolis?

The right time for a settlement was that instant in January 2006 when Hamas bought in—ever so tenuously, it is true, but nevertheless bought in—to the “system.” Reinforcing that fleeting inclination to compromise might have started some historic balls rolling; instead, a very different lesson was rammed down the throats of the hardliners, and the huge anti-Annapolis demonstration in Gaza on the 27th was the direct result.

Israel is the country with troops occupying a foreign land; Israel is the side with the power. Therefore, it will be up to Israel to make the first move toward peace: Palestine in abject occupation cannot reasonably be asked for any more concessions. But even in this Christmas season, given the events of the last two years, it strains the imagination to conceive of a deal that Israel could offer Fatah that would suffice to quell Palestinian suspicions of a sell-out. And the horizons are crowded with extremists more than willing to take advantage of any Palestinians who may want to return whatever "present" Tel Aviv offers them.