What Tangible Results Are Necessary for the Annapolis Conference To Be Deemed a Success?

Posted by Frederick Jones
November 15, 2007
Aerial Photo of Jerusalem

The United States hosted a conference in Annapolis, Maryland November 27 with the hopes of mapping out the political horizon for the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. The conference also served as a launching point for further negotiations between the parties.

What tangible results are necessary for the Annapolis Conference to be deemed a success?

Comments

Comments

Ronald
|
New York, USA
November 21, 2007

Ronald in New York writes:

Criteria for Success in Annapolis:

1 - 40 seats occupied.
2 - No verbal or physical violence.
3 - Saudi support for Israeli/Palestinian agreement.
4 - Everyone has a copy of the "Roadmap"
5 - Sponsorship by Garmin or Tom-Tom.
6 - Crabcakes on the menu.
7 - No Hezbollah or Hamas disruptions.
8 - President attends full conference.
9 - No "Oil for Peace" deals.
10 - Separate checks.

Syrian P.
|
Syria
November 22, 2007

SNP in Syria writes:

Tangible evidence of the success of this Annapolis sham conference (a photo op basically so Rice and Bush can place the photos over the fireplace when these low achievers leaves office) will be a settlement that is based on the Syrian Nationalist Party Middle East Peace Plan. That is, Israel is a Jewish State. Jerusalem is its capital, if so the Jews chose. The Jews, those that hold the Hebrew Tribes surnames and any modern or derivative thereof have the right of return into and live in peace in all and any parts of Israel. The right of these tribes holding surnames to rebuilt the temple on top of the destroyed Second Temple by facilitating an Architectural Development plan to relocate the Aqsa further Eastward and clear the Mount for the Jews to rebuild. The right of return of Palestinian that have been living as refugees into Jordan and into Greater Gaza, by expanding its southern boarders toward the Sinai, along the Mediterranean coast and developing all sort of resorts area along this barren and not inhabited coastal region on Sinai. That expanse of land can be purchased from Egypt, in the same way the U.S bough Alaska from the Russian.

Anything short of that, the Jews will be fools to negotiate anything less than these terms. But we all know Bush, Rice, Abbas, Olmert and Barak, so expect nothing to happen other than a circus show and tens of thousands of photos, one may be nice to display on top of the fireplace for Bush Ranch. Abbas donãt have a fireplace, so he will hang it above his used car salesman like Presidential office and will be hung there until Hamas take over the West bank, then you will see news footage showing that Annapolis souvenir tossed on the floor with broken glass and half burned.

Footnote:
The Syrian Nationalist Party does not hold any merit to Islamic nor Arab nationalist claims, arguments and made up fictitious history regarding the status of Jerusalem and the Mount area. It relies exclusively on Syrian History. Under such views, the party recognizes that at the time of the Roman invasion of the City, Hebrew, the dialect of the Jews, who the party recognizes as originally assembled from the disfranchised and the lower classes of that time in Greater Syria were the exclusive language used in written and spoken form in the City of Jerusalem. Therefore, the City is a Hebrew Settlement town and includes its surrounding habitats. Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians have neither right in nor claim to Jerusalem.

Regarding the Temple Mount;
There are no written evidence whatsoever to the Muslim and Arab well known legends, that is all they are, story telling. Should the Archaeological evidences discovered and authenticated by a neutral, non interested third parties of Archaeologists, using modern Archaeological DNA methods, determined to be that in fact those discovered artifacts are of the First Temple Mount, and the discovery contains evidences that the site was in fact the Temple as described in Biblical writings, not just pots and pan civil settlement, the Jews, holder of the tribes names and derivative thereof, not the Khazzar or converted Madonna, should have the right and title to the site and the exclusive right to re-build the temple if so they choose and on the condition that no Blood Ceremony may be performed in this rebuilt Third Temple.

UJ
November 22, 2007

U.J. writes:

Are you asking rhetorically or because the State Department actually has no idea? With all that State's accomplished in the last 3 years, you'd think the Israeli/Palestinian issue would be a breeze, huh?

Lots of luck in Annapolis.

Zharkov
November 22, 2007

Zharkov writes:

Would this be yet another Palestinian "peace" conference with billions of U.S. tax dollars transferred to the so-called Palestinian "leaders" in exchange for an automatically-ignored peace agreement?

Will we be supplying the Palestinian leadership/former terrorists with chemical weapons or merely machine guns and tanks? How many suicide bombers will receive U.S. citizenship in exchange for their promise to behave?

I think the conference should be considered a success only after it is moved to Paris to be negotiated exclusively with the French. It's the favorite shopping place for the billionaire wives of former Palestinian leaders and their luxury goods remind us of the success of previous peace conferences.

James
|
Virginia, USA
November 23, 2007

James in Virginia writes:

Peace.

William
|
Texas, USA
November 24, 2007

William in Texas writes:

Lack of an intifada after its failure.

David
|
New Jersey, USA
November 24, 2007

David in New Jersey writes:

What is most encouraging in the region is a growing recognition that investment in human capital must increase and lead to greater employment in self-sustaining development.

Although it may not be on the agenda at Annapolis, one outcome could be a resolution to explore the idea of an online university for the entire Middle East along the lines of the Western Governors University in the United States. In the Middle East, such an institution could involve every country in the region and could permit sharing instruction across borders.

Bennett
|
United States
November 25, 2007

Bennett in U.S.A. writes:

* Recognition that Israel is a Jewish state
* Israel has the right to secure and defensible borders
* Creation of a Palestinian state is tied to the cessation of terrorist attacks

Syrian P.
|
Syria
November 25, 2007

SNP in Syria writes:

NRG.co.il, the website of Maariv (the 2nd most popular daily newspaper in Israel), did a web survey today.

The question was: "How will the Annapolis conference end?"

Here are the results:

* Only with a photo - 92%
* With a real process - 8%

Number of web voters: 1,440
Walla.co.il (an Israeli Yahoo like portal), the 2nd most popular local site and a primary news source did a web survey today.

The question was: "What are you most interested in?"
Here are the results:

* The Annapolis conference - 8%
* When will the teachers' strike end - 49%
* The latest police affair 5%
* The frequent earthquakes - 35%
* The quarrels in the judiciary system - 3%

Number of web voters: 19,287

Nana10.co.il (an Israeli portal), the 5th most popular local site and a news source, did a web survey today.

The question was: "The Annapolis conference isã"

Here are the results:

* The right road to peace - 12%
* The road to another failure - 16%
* The road to the next Intifada - 18%
* The road to nowhere - 54%

Number of web voters: 1,137

Jack
|
California, USA
November 25, 2007

Jack in California writes:

For this to be a success we'd need to say recognition and acknowledgment of Israeli sovereignty by the Pals and Arab nations. A commitment by the Arabs to end terror and support of terror as well as verbal and written condemnation.

But in reality none of these things will happen.
http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2007/11/saving_israel.php

Robert
|
United States
November 26, 2007

Robert in U.S.A. writes:

Ehud Olmert's government should collapse and nothing should come out of a conference to create a terrorist JudenRein, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian state in the Middle East. That would be deemed a success.

Bill
|
Pennsylvania, USA
November 26, 2007

Bill in Pennsylvania writes:

This peace conference, like those before it, is an exercise in futility. One cannot reason or negotiate with irrational and dishonest bargaining partners. When Israel turned Gaza over to the Palestinians, the Palestinians began by demolishing the greenhouses they were given by well-meaning philanthropists. They also demolished synagogues that they could have turned into houses, schools, or even mosques. This behavior is irrational, because even the world's most aggressive conquerors do not destroy property that they or their people might use.

Then the Palestinians elected a terrorist government, spent enormous sums of money on weapons instead of food and other necessities, and began to fire missiles at Israel. This underscores the fact that the Palestinians are also dishonest. In our culture, a truce means "no fighting and no killing." An Arab hudna is a phony or temporary truce whose sole purpose is to give its proponents a respite while they recover the means of perpetrating more violence.

It is not possible to negotiate or reason with a society that behaves in this manner while raising its children from birth to be terrorists. The Marshall Plan worked for Germany after the Nazis had been removed from power and tried at Nuremberg. Any attempt to give the Palestinians the equivalent of the Marshall Plan while Hamas is still in power is futile or worse.

Ben T.
|
Illinois, USA
November 26, 2007

Ben in Illinois writes:

The Arabs move back to Saudi Arabia where they came from and leave the Land of Israel Arab-free, so that the Jews, to whom the land was given, can go about their destiny to serve HaSh-m (the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Creator of the Universe) and build the 3rd Temple to bring about the Redemption and hasten the arrival of the Moshiach (Messiah). Simple isn't it. However, this is no answer for the Arabist, US State Dept who has fought against HaSh-m tooth and nail for a long time and voted for the false Moon god Allah every chance it got. HaSh-m has given us the great gift of free-will to either be wise or a fool. However, He has given us rules to be wise and if we ignore them, then the results be on our own heads.

jerry
|
New York, USA
November 26, 2007

Jerry in New York writes:

Annapolis is a danger to Israeli security and thus to the United States as well. Weakening an ally seems poor policy. Rather, emphasis should be placed on demands for Arab and Muslim flexibility, since that is the trait they seem to be lacking. Recognition of Israel as the State of the Jewish People would go a long way in demonstrating this flexibility. The creation of a truly apartheid Palestinian state in which neither Jew nor Christian will be able to live or own property is not a long-term desirable outcome.

The best result of Annapolis would be for the United States to come to the realization that a Manhattan Project is necessary to rid itself of the undue influence wielded by Saudi Arabia because of its oil wealth. Their influence warps policy in ways that are anathema to American interests and cultural inclinations. We are pauperizing Americans by not viewing the transfer of our wealth to the Middle East as a crisis in progress.

Mark
|
New York, USA
November 26, 2007

Mark in New York writes:

Nothing since the State Department is filled with anti-Semitic or should I say anti-Jewish Arabists, just ask Ollie North like I did. But why should I have to tell you guys that you’re the State Department.

JUAN
|
Florida, USA
November 26, 2007

Juan in Florida writes:

There will be a tangible result from Annapolis and that is that terrorists worldwide will get the message that terrorism pays.

A conference hosted by none other than the president of the U.S. is a reward to terrorism. And, if Israel should agree to any 'conditions', there will be a 'tangible' prize to terrorists worldwide, that will only encourage more terrorism.

Handing out a few kilometers of Israeli land to Arabs will not bring about peace. This is a dangerous delusion, especially since this land would certainly become a terrorist stronghold.

Remember, all other peace conferences were followed by only more terrorism.

The September 11 attacks were clearly a result of years of appeasement, chief among them the infamous Oslo 'peace' conference.

As another example, Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, another 'peace' initiative brought about a war, and heavy militarization of Lebanon by a vicious and dangerous band of terrorists that hate Israel and western values.

Same with Gaza, which is now a Hamas stronghold.

I say no more 'peace' conferences until Palestinians and Arabs behave peacefully, and terrorism subsides worldwide.

Further, I would suggest that the U.S. promote a “100 years of peace” campaign, that is, one hundred years of uninterrupted peace will be followed by a conference, at Annapolis if you like.

Now, that would be something tangible.

Raul
|
Argentina
November 26, 2007

Raul in Argentina writes:

I think it is very unlikely to get a good result. I just wonder why the West supports this meeting just now when Hamas is about to controll Palestinian authority. A Palestinian State would only lead to another war like Iraq and Afganistan. Why supporting the creation of a terrorist State which can threaten world peace and become a new center of al-Qaeda terror?

I would consider a good point if at least Palestinians recognised Jerusalem as the Israeli Capital and withdrew their claim to return.

It is absurd to speak of two States, if Arabs claim Jews be removed from Cisjordania and Gazza, and at the same time claim Arabs can live in Israel and send refugees. It cannot be considered a two State solution.

Anyway which is the point in negotiating with Abbas while Hamas controls the situation?

Burt
|
United Kingdom
November 26, 2007

Burt in U.K. writes:

Success would mean the Arabs dropping their foolish demand for "right of return", and agreeing to compensate the 850,000 Jews who were thrown out of Arab countries post 1948 after their goods were confiscated.

Success would also be recognizing Israel, dropping "rejectionism", and stopping wanton terror..

Joel
|
Florida, USA
November 26, 2007

Joel in Florida writes:

In order for the Annapolis Conference to provide any successful results, it is necessary that the Palestinian attendees become civilized and free themselves from a terror/hostility based position, and act like a people rather than a criminal gang. They must repeat must learn to live with their neighbors, even if they do not like them. It is not necessary to like or trust one's next-door neighbors, but feeling that violence can be visited upon them is folly. Personally, I do NOT look for any positive outcome to this meeting. But that is good. The sooner a splash of cold water hits the faces of the attendees, the sooner they will get about the reality show of their art of the world

David
|
New York, USA
November 26, 2007

David in New York writes:

If the parties agree to further negotiation, and not violence, it will be a success.

Lucille
|
United Kingdom
November 26, 2007

Lucille in U.K. writes:

Annapolis makes noises that will prove unintelligible because it has no teeth and is profoundly deaf and just dumb.

When you can get the Arab leaders and the Palestinians to truly accept the right to exist of a Jewish State on its religious and historical homeland in the Middle East, then there is a glimmer of hope. Until then, they fall back on concepts of "jihad" and "dar al-Islam" to whip up their populations and deflect the anger of their own people away from them. For them, "Peace" can only be a temporary expedient.

jerry
|
New York, USA
November 26, 2007

Jerry in New York writes:

Hezbollah Recruiting Thousands Of New Soldiers Thanks To U.S. Diplomatic Failures, Lebanese Electoral Crisis (Plus: State Department Wants To Repeat Same Plan In West Bank And Wants Your Feedback)
Hezbollah still mysteriously not disarmed

In fairness to the State Department and the Bush Administration, this is a total surprise, right?

Hezbollah is exploiting the tense political deadlock in Beirut to recruit thousands of new fighters, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal. The Iranian-backed Shia militant group has begun drawing fighters from across the sectarian divide, including Sunnis, Christians and Druze, in an effort to create a united opposition to the government... Last night, Lebanese Brigadier Gen Amin Hotait warned that Hezbollah had expanded its recruiting to bring Sunni, Christian and Druze fighters together under the banner of an opposition. He said that the arming and recruiting campaign began after Hezbollah declared "divine victory" over Israel after the month-long war last year. It has been continued in defiance of calls by the United Nations Security Council and the Western-backed government in Beirut for Hezbollah to disarm.

Now we could go for the cheap and easy "Lebanon is the West Bank" punch line: there's something familiar about the State Department's Lebanon II strategy, where they prevented the IDF from dismantling an Iranian proxy in a futile attempt to bolster a fundamentally weak and electorally doomed slightly-more-moderate Arab regime. But we did that one last week. Instead we're going to go with the other cheap and easy "Lebanon is the West Bank" punch line: isn't it great how the US is giving cutting edge military tech to the Lebanese government, as if the local Iranian proxy could never, ever take it over electorally or militarily?

Incidentally, how can it possibly be the case that Hezbollah began rearming immediately after Lebanon II? The commander of UNIFIL seemed so sure when he condescendingly mocking Israelis for insisting that Hezbollah was rearming. It's almost like the State Department and the UN make things up to coerce Israel into making concessions, and then scapegoat Israel when their demonstrably false assumptions lead to policy disasters. Almost, right?

Ron
|
Kansas, USA
November 26, 2007

Ron in Kansas writes:

In an effort to keep it short, sweet, and to the point here goes nothing.

People are a product of their environment and if that has been one of consistent battle, instability, and chaos then to expect anyone within that environment to feel hopeful of anything different doesn't make sense.

That’s why there are leaders. Those who purport to represent their perspective populous carry the responsibility of bringing any change related to the surrounding regions.

If nothing else Annapolis will for once in a long time bring an opportunity to show the world as a whole which countries are truly willing to work towards peace and which simply like to play along while keeping their own agendas well in hand to the contrary.

Don't think each and every one of the countries attending don't realize this, and you can bet more than one aren't too excited about it.

Not sure where I heard this but it rings true
------------------------------------------------
You may not like where you stand when it's over and done with; but at least you 'll know where you stand.

Just my 1 1/2...

Gary
|
Canada
November 26, 2007

Gary in Canada writes:

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am concerned that Israel is being asked to make all the concessions and demands. The Arab nations are bringing nothing but hate, warnings and threats of violence to the table.

The Arab world is strong and it has the necessary resources, land and access to worldwide help to settle the Palestinian refugee problem once and for all. Look at how the Emirates have created an oasis of capitalism in the desert (tainted by some undesirable aspects of Islam, yes, but many times better than neighboring Arab Islamic countries with similar resources).

The Arabs could, if they wanted to, utilize the manpower and strength of the Palestinians in a positive way (rather than using them and abusing them in an endless political and religious war on non-Muslims) by inviting them to become citizens of their own rich Arab countries.

It is the Muslim countries that are preventing a solution because of their rapaciousness. They want to own and control everything in the region, especially the land of Israel where one of their important Mosques is situated. Islam has subsumed and consumed other religions in its desire to make others inferiors and dependants of Islam (dhimmitude is the word).

The peace process has always been one-sided: Israel is asked to give and the Arabs make demands. This assumes a moral superiority on the part of the Muslims that they do not deserve and that we should not be allowing them to exercise.

If talks cannot be held between equals and the Arab side is demanding all the respect, all the concessions and all the giving while they lazily do nothing more than make demands and manipulate the world into a false understanding of the truth, then peace will always be an impossibility.

I would like to hear one Arab leader open up his heart and his country to the Palestinian people instead of urging them to take what is not theirs or was lost to them through wars which they initiated in order to ethnically cleanse the Jewish people which, thankfully, never happened -- and hopefully never will.

Ed
|
New York, USA
November 26, 2007

Ed in New York writes:

Arab recognition of Israel. Delay of further negotiations until all Palestinian terror groups are dismantled, all Arab media outlets cease anti-American and anti-Semitic hatred.

Meyer F.
|
New York, USA
November 26, 2007

Meyer in New York writes:

In order for there to be the possibility of any progress towards peace, Israel's neighbors must remove from their constitutions, the intent to destroy Israel, and must remove all insightful hatred of Israel from their media, schoolbooks, etc. They must openly state that they accept Israel as a Jewish state. (Their delegations must exchange handshakes with the Israeli delegates. I refer to the head of the Saudi delegation, who stated that he would not shake hands with Israeli delegates.)

Mat
|
Arizona, USA
November 26, 2007

Mat in Arizona writes:

I don't harbor much hope for this. I'm no Ivy League edumacated diplomat, just a simple Arizona redneck, but it seem to me you can only have peace when both sides are committed to it and I don't see that from either of the Palestinian factions, Hamas or Fatah. I don't see why State continues to pressure Israel to give up land for an illusory peace unless it is to please the Saudis.

If you diplomats can get the Palestinians to agree to renounce their goal of destroying the State of Israel then maybe it will be a success. But I wouldn't bet in Vegas on those odds.

So, if the Palestinians agree to accept the existence of the State of Israel and we avoid another massive transfer of US taxpayers money to a terrorist government that will use that aid to kill Israeli civilians then yes Annapolis will be a success. Good Luck.

David
|
New York, USA
November 26, 2007

David in New York writes:

FACT: Abbas currently represents less than half of the "future Palestinian State". Hamas and the constant shelling from Gaza can not be ignored. No one is taking responsibility for what's happening there. Who is going to deal with Gaza?

Imagine the US's response if US border cities in New York or Texas were constantly being shelled from Canada and Mexico

FACT: The Palestinian side has consistently ignored its obligations and promises previously made. They must first catch up and fulfill agreements previously made. The US must insure that BOTH sides have fulfilled promises previously made.

There has to be give and take from both sides for the conference to work. Negotiations require TWO parties to cooperate. The two sides need to begin without preconditions.

Lastly, let's listen to the rhetoric that some of the parties involved publish on a daily basis. Don’t ignore the shelling, bombings and threats. Israel has NEVER threatened any of its neighbors with attack annihilation.

Hopefully this conference will start a dialogue between the parties involved.

Please, Prime Minister Olmert, remember that it takes 2 parties to negotiate. You don't have someone across the table that represents all the territory that is under discussion and there are serious doubts whether he can deliver anything he promises.

Avi
|
New Jersey, USA
November 26, 2007

Avi in New Jersey writes:

This will fail since the Arabs have not unequivocally rejected terrorism because they feel that it’s OK when it benefits them. They can't even agree on the definition of terrorism!

And if Israel is ready to be foolish enough to give more land for peace, which has failed to bring about peace in the past, then some Arabs are willing to see what they can get.

Hamas and other radical groups that threaten any peace that could be achieved have not been properly confronted (and disbanded by the PA) which also guarantees that these talks will fail.

It seems to me that propping up some Arabs (like Abbas) as moderates to win hearts and minds is unfortunately beyond wishful thinking.

David
|
New York, USA
November 26, 2007

David in New York writes:

Mahmoud Abbbas has to stop using his schools, media, and mosques to incite jihad, hatred, and murder.

Of course, he won't (but that wasn't the question).

Pages

.

Latest Stories

March 21, 2008

Your Passport File

We received many questions from the press and the public, several on this blog, about the information contained in a… more

Pages