The Current Discussion: With the Israeli re-invasion of Gaza, it's clear that the "Annapolis Peace Process" is collapsing. Does it matter? Who's to blame?
The Annapolis Peace Process was dead at birth. It was conceived as an American project for internal politics. The cause of death is the obvious defective design of a hasty and illogical desire to decouple from the past. It might be a flashback to 1947, when Britain withdrew from the Mandate of Palestine and announced that it could not reach a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews. Thereafter the young U.N. General Assembly resolved to create two countries alongside each other, with Jerusalem as a specially designated city of equal access. Nevertheless, Israel declared independence and the complicated problem remains alive some sixty years later. (Didn’t we see a re-run of this show in Kosovo a mere two weeks ago?)
The Annapolis plan has set a course of denial and disregard for history. It aimed to suspend the realities of the region and it tried to turn away from the suffering of about two million people in Gaza. The ill-informed planners fancied to rise over the ruins of the Oslo Agreement, craft a hurried hoax legacy for President Bush (and paper over devastating failures in Iraq and Afghanistan) and let a naive implementation by Tony Blair, the disgraced former British prime minster, rip through a turgid plan—all preferably in time for American elections a year later. A “massive” aid of 20 dollars per Palestinian and McDonald’s Happy Meals was the supposed deal closer, albeit short of a few freedom fries! It all proved to be a measly short-lived life support machine for the Kadima Party and shifty politics of Ehud Olmert. It all tattered unsurprisingly, a mere seven weeks after the personal visit of President Bush in January to redouble the bet on long odds.
The Arab League and Sunni Arab leaders attended Annapolis on an autumn day after reaching a common conclusion that it is nothing more than a hollow posturing exercise and an opportunity for photos and a subsequent I-told-you-so. They remain silent as Israel threatens a “holocaust” in Gaza.
Who is to blame? How about all parties that thought "divide and dominate" was sound policy? Those that sought a divide amongst Palestinians proved themselves to be uninformed and out of touch with reality. Perhaps they ought to be collectively punished. How could there be peace and settlement of deep-rooted issues when at least half of one side is kept in a virtual prison, starved of food, medicine, fuel and electricity? And if Annapolis was a mere mimic of The Dayton Agreement in Bosnia, how could it be done without landing of peacekeeping troops?
As I wrote in 2006, it is time to revisit the original U.N. partition plan, disarm both sides, and create a calm atmosphere for all sides. Why not create a pair of UN protectorates like Kosovo by landing troops in a land mass that is a mere five percent of Iraq or half of Bosnia? It is the only realistic way to enforce calm in the region, ensure the security of both sides and let heads cool for a few decades. With the occupation of Washington by pro-Israeli lobbies, this idea could be dismissed as a fantasy. But how is it not practical? Stack it against all other endeavors and battles for peace and it will shine as the only winner with a side bonus-- the ideological disarmament of violent jihadists in Afghan mountains and suicide bombers in Baghdad markets. I think that is a bet with a lot more realistic odds.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Email This Post to a Friend | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook | Email the Author
