It’s The Land, Stupid. The Land
By David Truskoff
30 November, 2007
Countercurrents.org
President Bush reading the speech at the Annapolis Peace conference, "We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation, a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security. We meet to help bring an end to violence that has been the true enemy to the aspirations of both the Israelis and Palestinians.
We’re off to a strong start. I’m about to read a statement that was agreed upon by our distinguished guests.
The Steering Committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues to be headed by one lead representative from each party. The first session of the Steering Committee will be held on 12 December 2007. President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert will continue to meet on a biweekly basis to follow up the negotiations in order to offer all necessary assistance for their advancement.
"The parties also commit to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 — this is called the road map — and agreed to form an American-Palestinian and Israeli mechanism led by the United States to follow up on the implementation of the road map."
The trouble is none of the parties has a higher rating at home of over 30 % . The generals are marching off to battle, but there is no army behind them.
Whew! The Jewish press and Zionists everywhere breathed a sigh of relief. The Jewish Press gleefully stated, "One can never be sure how these things will look in hindsight, but the statements from President Bush and various U.S. officials these past few days about the president’s " hands off" approach to the Middle East and, indeed, the joint statement issued at the Annapolis conference without any specifics have eased some of the concerns many of us had that the Annapolis Conference portended a revisiting of Clintonian-style pressure on Israel to make a lopsided deal with the Palestinians." What lopsided deal are they talking about?
One can almost feel sorry for Poor Condi Rice. She must have thought that the Annapolis Conference would be her crowning moment. Instead she left the party alone again and still without a point of reference. The butterfly is already planning to board another flight to somewhere.Her boss, President Bush said, ""One thing I've assured both gentlemen is that the United States will be actively engaged in the process, that we will use our power to help you as you come up with the necessary decisions to lay out a Palestinian state that will live side by side in peace with Israel." Can he really be dreaming of going down as the peace president? It is a sick joke that is not at all funny. The conference reeked of slimy politics. Bush glorying in the praise by the very states that will get cold cash at the Paris conference posed for many smiling photo ops. There is no way that Olmert, who desperately clings to his office can even imply that he is giving back an inch of land. If he does so he will destroy the fragile coalition that keeps him in power. The even more dangerous, and feared man by the Palestinians, Benjamin Netanhahu is just waiting to see if Olmert makes such a move. He will then drag his right wing parties out of the coalition and Olmert will go down. The "Two State peace process will have to wait for still another round.
The Annapolis Agreement renews the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. Now, there is a new Idea. The new idea that has been rejected time and time again by Israel when the right of return is injected. The issue of " Greater Israel" hangs like a ghost over all the so-called "Peace conferences", but is never discussed.
Bush said, "We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation, a democratic Palestinian state." Didn’t the Saudi initiative of 2002 say the same thing? Didn’t Sharon reject it because it called for a" withdrawal from occupied land."The New York Times ran this headline, "Israel and Palestinians Set Goal of a Treaty in 2008." It gave many a sigh of relief. We don’t have to worry about the problem for another year or so. The words of Emmanuel Nachshon in answer to the Saudi plan rings louder and louder over the Bush attempt to bolster Republican ratings, "We cannot accept on the one hand to have negotiations for an independent Palestinian state and on the other hand have the Palestinians come into Israel. This means the destruction of Israel and we cannot agree." Perhaps when "Greater Israel" is complete and Israel has all the land then there can be a Palestinian State.
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Syndicate CC Headlines On Your Blog
