The Annapolis Peace Conference
Some good questions from Bernard Lewis over at the Wall Street Journal:
Herewith some thoughts about tomorrow’s Annapolis peace conference, and the larger problem of how to approach the Israel-Palestine conflict. The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, “What is the conflict about?” There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.
If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.
If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.
Mr. Lewis, at the end of his piece, asserts that at present it does not seem that the Arab/Moslem leadership is interested in mere negotiations over the size of Israel…at best, they are interested in a temporary, tactical deal as part of a long process to eventually result in the destruction of Israel. Such has been the long-stated position of most leaders of the Arab/Moslem world, and their actions have almost always matched their rhetoric in this area. So, why are we having this conference?
A lot of my fellow conservatives are dismayed by the calling of this conference - and some ask how we who are supporting it would view it if a President Clinton had called it. To me, that expresses a cynical vision of the world I refuse to hold. When President Clinton tried to broker a peace deal in 2000, I thought it wouldn’t work - but I hoped it would. Anything to bring an end to the fighting, as long as it was a good peace. As I expected, it didn’t work - Arafat, offered 99% of what he said he wanted, refused to agree to anything less than 110% of his demands, and the whole conference went down the tubes, and Arafat then instigated the Second Intifada. But here we are now in 2007, and things have changed a lot.
Saddam is no longer in power in Iraq. Iraq has a democratic government - makeshift, to be sure, but functioning all the same; and with military and police forces growing in strength and competance by the day. The United States will not cut-and-run…even if a Democrat wins in 2008, the political realities will prevent a precipitate withdrawal, and even after a withdrawal, we will still be in the middle east, and will still support the Iraqi government. Arafat is dead - and in his place is Mahmous Abbas, a man just about as wicked as Arafat ever was, but also facing the fact that he either makes a deal with Israel and the US, or falls to the Hamas terrorists, who will kill him. Syria has been doing its level best to ruin our efforts in the middle east - but has failed to derail us…and now faces an ever stronger Iraqi democracy, which bears Syria no good will. At bottom, while it may seem on the surface that things are similar to 2000, they have actually undergone a sea change - now is the time for us to hit the diplomatic trail and reap in politics what we have won by war.
It won’t be easy - and there won’t be a comprehensive peace deal worked out in this Annapolis conference, but the fact that so many have agreed to participate shows that under the surface, the leadership of the Arab/Moslem world can see a new day a-dawning, and they’ll want to try and shape its course, and that requires deals with the United States and Israel. Bin Laden said that the Arab/Moslem world should bet on him, as he was the strong horse - what we’ve proved by our dogged persistence in Iraq is that we are the stronger horse, and while a person or nation might loath us, they must also deal with us.
44 comments November 27th, 2007
