Peace Conference: New Case for War
By Ramzy Baroud

Annapolis peace conference may turn out to be a mirage

The hope that the Annapolis peace conference is carrying may well turn out to be no more than a mirage. (Reuters Photo)

The Middle East peace conference proposed by the Bush administration is clearly a smokescreen, aimed at concealing the true intentions of US foreign policy in the region. In the predictable process of rewarding "moderate" allies and chastising "extremist" foes, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will most likely receive the accolades befitting a peacemaker, while his protagonists in Hamas are reprimanded, demonized and further isolated. But the ultimate goal of this charade is not even so much to isolate Hamas, but rather to set in motion events that will further isolate Iran and Syria.

The significance of the anti-Iran campaign already underway in the US should not be missed in light of the conference next month. The media circus demonizing Iran was unleashed a few years ago, when leading neoconservatives, notwithstanding Richard Perle himself, went on accusing President Bush, some of his advisors, and military generals of being "stupid" for failing to recognize the threat posed by Iran.

However, more recently, and most notably after the failure of the Israeli military adventure in South Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the war drums sounded by the media began to take on a new and deafening volume, reminiscent of that which preceded the US war on Iraq in March 2003. Those who appreciate the symbiotic relationship between the media and the state in the US can understand well that such a campaign is anything but genuine intellectual concern over the state of human rights in Iran, or the outcome of a sudden realization that Iran is impairing US war efforts in Iraq.

Considering the level of determination in Washington and Tel Aviv to confront Iran militarily and the media's decided role in again gathering the public support for such a prospect, it is difficult to imagine a peaceful way out of the crisis.

Israel might be genuine in its fear that Iran's nuclear program has less than peaceful aims; since Israel is laden with nuclear warheads and missile technology capable of delivering them wherever intended, it is only reasonable to assume that Israel wishes to ensure that it remains the sole holder of such lethal power. However, Israel is also wary of Iran's regional influence; without it Hizbullah could not have forced Israel to abandon its plans in Lebanon — aimed at controlling the country via proxy and toppling the Syrian regime.

Moreover, both Iran and Syria have proved of tremendous value to Hamas' survival. The former has provided Hamas with immense financial resources, and the latter has provided the movement with a political platform. Without Tehran and Damascus, it would have been impossible for Hamas — or the other Palestinian groups whose policies are not consistent with Israel's or the US' — to continue to exist outside the Occupied Territories and Israeli prisons for so long and against all odds. Hamas is, of course, aware of the fact that its relationship with Iran and Syria is hinged on these two states' own national interest, and this gamble is worth the risk for Hamas because it lacks other options.

Fishy Peace Conclusions

Olmert needs enough ambiguity in the conference's final statement to prove to his shaky coalition that Israel is under no obligation to change its course and ongoing colonial projects in the West Bank.

(Behind closed doors stateside, US lawmakers have also stated that it will apply no pressure on Israel to make concessions or negotiate in the name of peace.)

Thus, the peace conference will likely conclude with the propagation of the following assumptions: that both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas are genuine in their intentions to achieve a lasting peace and bring one of the world's most entangled conflicts to an end; that both leaders will agree to a vague set of terms according to which the "final status" of negotiations is determined.

Abbas needs enough promises from Israel to convince Palestinians that the light at the end of the tunnel (which they have been promised for many years) is within reach, and Olmert needs enough ambiguity in the conference's final statement to prove to his shaky coalition that Israel is under no obligation to change its course and ongoing colonial projects in the West Bank.

(Mainly, Israel is in desperate need of some positive PR, since its own actions have seriously undermined support and sympathy for the military-Apartheid state in recent months.)

Most Palestinians, other than the self-representative elites of Abbas and his dependents, are likely to reject any offer that falls short of fulfilling the minimum of their internationally recognized rights. There would be a visible dissatisfaction in the predictably indecisive outcome of conference, manifesting in widespread protests, especially in the Hamas-controlled Gaza.

The violence into which Palestinians are provoked will, naturally, be blamed on the "enemies of peace", those same enemies who were also chastised, imprisoned, and tortured in the post-Oslo years.

Iran and Syria, who are likely to support the Palestinian opposition to the conference and its immediate outcomes — if any — will also be grouped into the enemies' list.

Any violent Palestinian response, regardless of the circumstances that lead to it, will be understood as Syrian and Iranian encouraged. With Israel already digging a hole for Syria — the Sept. 6 bombing of Syrian territories and the now-discredited justification offered by 'anonymous' top US officials that Israel has bombed a North Korean nuclear installation in Syria — a cause for war is already in the making.

However, like any other war fought in the Middle East and in which the US was involved, the lines need to be drawn more definitively: Israel, the US, and the 'moderate' (corrupt) Arabs to face up to Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas.

The peace conference is, in fact, the delineation of all of this and more. It will provide the media with the opportunity to bombard public opinion with half-truths and twisted facts regarding those standing for peace and those considered an obstacle to peace, obstacles that can seemingly be removed through violence, thus forming a new case for a new war.

Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian-American author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London). Read more about him on his website. He can be reached through Muslim Affairs' e-mail.

www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1193049074125&page

Annapolis Peace Plan Sunk by Olmert Slap Down of Rice

Friday, October 26 2007 @ 12:47 AM EDT
Edited by: Michael Hess

BBSNews Blog 2007-10-26 -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, himself lame in his own country as he is mired down by domestic troubles and last years failed Lebanon War, has scuttled US Secretary Condoleezza Rice's plan for a serious Annapolis meeting yesterday.

Skepticism had already abounded given the fact that Olmert is so weak and Abu Mazen is not currently representing all Palestinians. And Arab governments in general have been less than enthusistic to embrace the idea of Annapolis being anything much more than what secretary Rice disdained as a "photo op" even though Jordan and to a lesser extent Egypt voiced some optimism for an agreement after Rice's shuttle diplomacy in recent days.

The Daily Star in Lebanon reported on Olmert's further efforts to downplay any real substance to the meeting:

"'If all goes well, hopefully, we will meet in Annapolis,' he said. 'Annapolis is not made to be the event for the declaration of peace.' Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams have been trying to draft a joint declaration outlining a future peace agreement ahead of the conference.

The two sides have expressed vastly different sets of expectations for the summit.

The Palestinians are seeking an agreement addressing the core issues at the heart of the conflict: final borders, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees. They also want a timeline for creation of a Palestinian state.

Israel wants a more general document, saying it is premature to address many of these issues."

(In other words, it is not willing to recognize any Palestinian rights, and will perpetuate this cycle for as long as it takes for the Palestinians to abandon every one of them.)

In other words, even as peace is at hand through the rich and fully satisfying of all sides Arab Peace Initiative, Israel is not going to make the slightest move towards ending its occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which is bad enough news for Rice and US president George W. Bush's attempt at gaining a legacy to be proud of to cover for the disaster he has presided over and further fomented.

But in addition, Israel is now to begin collective punishment of the 1.5 million Gazans because of some haphazard homemade rockets fired towards Israel in a futile and ineffectively crude attempt at "resistance".

Dr. Rice claims it is all Iran. In reality Rice has come up against the famous Israeli "red lines" and there is nothing she can do but be shunted aside as Israel continues to annex land it does not own, widen it's illegal settlments, ignore international law and norms, and impose collective punishment on not just the Palestinians in Gaza but also those in the West Bank who get less water and less services and freedom of movement in their own land than does the settlers who are not supposed to be there in the first place.

Don't even think about an international East and West Jerusalem.

Does anybody remember the talk about removing some travel movement barriers to bolster Abbas and his "moderate" (read US supported) government? That didn't happen either. Palestinians are still being collectively punished and various Palestinians are being assassinated by Israel in both Gaza and the West Bank even as they try to keep the collateral damage (read dead civilians, many children) to a minimum. Hmmph.

Rice must be livid that she will likely not even get her meeting, a meeting with no date and no official invitees that some say her personal reputation hinges upon. The obvious reality now is that Ehud Olmert has made clear that this will be no meeting for a peace agreement and not only that, he is going to sabotage any possible buildup of good will, and also weaken Abbas's position with his people by cutting electricity to Gaza for resisting the Israeli occupation with their crude and ineffective rockets.

That pretty much ends the opportunity for the Bush administration to see the Arabs sign on to peace with Israel. They have now seen that the US is powerless to broker an effective rendering of the very viable Arab Peace initiative because Israel just says no.

Republicans will no doubt embrace Israel's position. Even as they do not realize this is tantamount to saying it would be alright to start using Apache helicopters to assassinate California local officials for not doing enough to keep the Crips and the Bloods from spreading their terror beyond California's border. By signing on to Israel's current stance of continuing perpetual occupation it is also the same as endorsing using bulldozers to destroy the homes and parts of neighborhoods in the process in California of those parents who raise kids who may be in the Crips or the Bloods and spread their terror outside of California.

And of course next is THE WALL. There will have to be a big wall to prevent the terror from the Crips and the Bloods and Californians must collectively pay for it.

It is extremely disheartening to even contemplate where this continuing failure to actually end the occupations will likely lead the world.
###

bbsnews.net/article.php/20071026004742577

Rice to Palestinians: lower your hopes

Zionists abandon peace

 http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?6597S