Annapolis Conference labeled as Failure before It Starts!
November 20, 2007
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
The Annapolis Peace Conference was called as a face saving attempt to justify a long string of efforts to create two states alongside each other in the old British Protectorate, now called Israel by the Jews, and Palestine by the Arabs. In Hollywood and TV series, the “Mission Impossible” flicks always have the male or female champion accomplish what is seen as “impossible,” but the real life scenario in Israel is truly an unsolvable problem. True peace cannot exist until the Second Advent of Israel’s Messiah occurs at the final battle of Armageddon.
The very best one could hope to see come out of the Annapolis Farce is a false peace somewhere on down the line involving a return to the United States old Road Map Peace Plan, as well as a return to peace talks later between Israel and Syria on the return of the Golan Heights
to Syria.
The first article from the Jerusalem Post involves the latest reports of Syrian involvement in it, and their version of what should come out of it. The other four articles describe the hopelessness of its inability to produce a true peace.
The US has forced Israel to release more Palestinian prisoners, to which the IDF and right wing Knesset members are objecting, and last minute compromises are being used to induce more nations to participate in the soon coming conference of smoke and mirrors. All this rates as a return to the days of the Keystone Cops silent films.
Begin Jerusalem Post Excerpt 1
Analysis: Syria becomes the Annapolis prize
Herb Keinon, THE JERUSALEM POST
November 20, 2007
Ostensibly, the Annapolis conference is about Israel, the Palestinians and efforts to bring about peace between them.
But Annapolis is about much more than just that. From the very beginning, Annapolis has also been about a key US interest: forming a coalition of “moderate” Sunni states to serve as a bulwark against rampaging Shi’ite extremism after the US leaves Iraq, or if Washington decides to move into Iran.
And in recent days the Annapolis conference has also turned into a meeting that is to a large degree about Syria.
Regarding the formation of a moderate Sunni coalition, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is betting that showing progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track will go a long way toward cementing together a moderate coalition willing to stand up to Iran and Shi’ite extremism.
Therefore, despite all the problems in pulling the meeting off, despite the failure up to this point to get Israel and the Palestinians to agree to a joint statement, despite a realization in Washington that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas does not have the ability to carry out an agreement and that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may not be able to carry it off politically, the US is dead set on going ahead with the meeting.
The reason: US President George W.
Bush announced in July that such a meeting will be held in the fall, and – as a result – such a meeting will be held in the fall, ready or not.
Bush cannot afford to be seen now as someone who cannot even succeed in bringing two parties heavily dependent on the US to a US-sponsored meeting. That would be a huge slap in the face, and another sign of US weakness
in the region.
And this is where Syria comes in. While there is no love lost in Washington for Syrian President Bashar Assad, Syria’s presence at the meeting is something that in a matter of months has gone from something that the US indicated it would tolerate, to something that the US now wants badly.
And not only the US. Jordan’s King Abdullah II made a rare trip to Damascus Sunday
to try and get Assad on board.
As odd as it may sound, Syria is the prize.
The US wants to see Syria at Annapolis because its presence there will be proof that it may very well be possible to peel Syria out of Iran’s orbit and into the warm embrace of the “normative” Arab world. Iran, obviously, is pulling Syria in the other direction.
Washington is so keen on seeing some kind of Syrian presence at Annapolis that it has apparently given assurances that “Syrian issues” will be addressed there in some fashion.
And Syrian issues in this context means only one thing: the Golan Heights. Syria has made it clear that it would not show up in Maryland unless the Golan was on the agenda.
It is clear that Assad will not be sending a representative to Annapolis to grant legitimacy to a bilateral Israeli-Palestinian process
that is meant to end up with an agreement between Israel and the Fatah-led PA. Keep in mind that Damascus houses and fully supports Hamas, which is ideologically opposed to any such process.
Rather, Assad has a price for his attendance and
for moving away from Iran, a price that – sooner or later – Israel will be asked to pay.
Jerusalem Center for Public Information – Daily Alert – Excerpt 2
Begin Baltimore Sun Article
Hopes Fall for Mideast Peace Talks
David Wood and David Nitkin
November 16, 2007
With a proposed Mideast peace conference in Annapolis only weeks away, the lofty goals outlined by President Bush seem to be fading beyond reach, with the meeting likely to be scaled back to a single day, according to senior U.S. officials and outside analysts.
The conference, originally expected to be set for late November, might not be held until mid-December, a State Department official hinted Wednesday. Bush’s spokeswoman called preparations for the conference “tenuous right now.” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack would not confirm that the conference will take place in November. “Look for something before winter – which means Dec. 21,” he told reporters.
End Baltimore Sun Article
Three Excerpt Reasons Why No TRUE Peace is Attainable!
The three excerpts, which follow, came from the Jerusalem Center for Public Information – Daily Alert. They were first issued by Haaretz, the New York Sun, and the Jerusalem Media Communications Center. They give just a few of the reasons that a true peace between Israel and Islam is not attainable.
Begin Excerpt 3
Chief PLO Negotiator: Palestinians Will Not Accept Israel as “Jewish State”
Barak Ravid
November 13,2007
Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, rejected on Monday Israel’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Earlier Monday, Prime Minister Olmert said, “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,” Olmert said. “This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state.” (Ha’aretz)
Begin Excerpt 4
What Most Palestinians Believe
Rick Richman
November 13, 2007
In a joint Palestinian-Israeli public opinion poll in June, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and the Harry S Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace found that only 60% of Palestinians agreed that, after reaching a permanent agreement on all issues of the conflict, there should be recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people.
In other words, about 40% opposed the recognition of a Jewish state – even after a resolution of “all issues of the conflict.” (New York Sun)
Begin Excerpt 5
November 13, 2007
Palestinian Poll: Most Support Right of Return to Israel, Want Jerusalem as Muslim Capital
According to a Palestinian poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center on Nov.
3-6, 67% favor the return of all Palestinian refugees to their original homes and not just to a Palestinian state.
53% see the best solution for Jerusalem as being a capital of the Muslims. (JMCC)
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.