In a perfect world, it makes sense that a country’s own people know what’s best. However, the current Pakistani issue should be dealt with differently simply because the U.S. has been directly involved in Pakistan since the Musharraf coup. Therefore, it can't just wash its hands – at least not now that the self-appointed president and chief of the Pakistani army had decided to suspend the constitution and declare an emergency. A hands-off U.S. policy now would be tantamount to giving a green light to a dictator to do whatever he wants to do (so long as that includes crushing the kinds of people America wants crushed).

Continue »

Israel was the only country in the world whose government, its opposition, and a majority of its people were in favor of the Iraq war. The loudest voices in favor of a strike against Iran today are exactly the same pro-Israel voices who also wanted the U.S. to attack Saddam, and they are the ones who are opposing President Bush in his belated and weak effort to push for a two-state solution in which Palestine will be an independent sate alongside the state of Israel.

After decades of conflict in the Middle East, Secretary Rice finally said three weeks ago that the creation of a Palestinian state is in the national interest of the United States. To prove it, the U.S. sent its National Security advisor to Ramallah. That’s the first time a senior U.S. official has discussed the Israeli-Palestine conflict in terms of U.S. national security.

Continue »

Whenever the superpowers decide on an international conference, the Palestinians are caught in a dilemma: they can't afford not to go, but they are worried about what could happen if they do go. The shadow of Arafat's participation in Camp David II hovers very profoundly; there is a feeling that, although the American president promised not to point fingers if the conference failed, he then did exactly that in an unjustifiable fashion.

The Palestinians’ power lies in the power to say no. They may not be able to impose what they want, but they can reject a peace plan or treaty that they feel does not meet their minimum national requirements. Rejection, however, has a steep cost because it would anger both the American hosts and, of course, the Israelis, who still have so many levers controlling Palestinian lives. Just two weeks ago, the chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmad Qurei got a feel for one of these levers when he was held up at a checkpoint while on his way to meet his Israeli counterparts.

Palestinians want and yearn for peace, but the most important accomplishment they can make is to get the Israelis to suspend their settlement activities. Ending the hemorrhage of Palestinian lands is the Palestinian’s biggest demand; it has been the chief source of criticism of the Oslo process, which failed to gain a settlement freeze in the hope that it wouldn't matter since in five years there would be a Palestinian state. The five years have become thirteen and the number of settlers in the Palestinian territories has doubled. In addition, we have also been cursed by an illegal (according to the international court at the Hague) wall that cuts deep into Palestinian lands and which separates the entire city of east Jerusalem from its natural place in Palestine.

It is important to understand what Annapolis means and what it doesn't. It certainly raises the profile of the U.S. involvement, as the U.S. will now be judge and jury (or, using the sports term, 'referee') in which they will judge which of the parties is honoring or violating the road map. The question is whether this refereeing will be made public or private and whether, as in modern American football, cameras (or rather satellites) will be used to see if the Israelis are indeed freezing settlements as the road map states, including natural growth and settlements in East Jerusalem?
Annapolis provides a mechanism and international support to negotiations for which is the kind of political will that is badly needed. But that support has also been misused to manipulate issues of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Apparently under pressure from his right-wing ally Liberman, who threatened to leave the coalition if the word Jerusalem was used in the communique, the statement sure enough didn't mention Jerusalem. In return the statement didn't mention the Israeli demand of Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (something even Israelis have not yet agreed on - they say that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state.) But then suddenly President Bush felt the need to say that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people?
Nothing was said in public directly about the Golan Heights, which begs the question, why did the Syrians come? Did the Saudis and/or the Americans promise them something down the line? Since the U.S. had hinted in the past to the Israelis not to talk to the Syrians, does the invitation and Syrian attendance open the way for Syrian-Israeli talks? And how will this potential opportunity for Syria (which probably considers its relationship with the U.S. more important than mere talks with Israelis) help resolve things in Lebanon? How will the conference affect the relations between Hamas and the co-star at Annapolis, Mahmoud Abbas?
The U.S. has given itself a major responsibility. Twelve months from now, we will be able to see how serious the Bush administration is about using the power of the presidency to do what is needed, pushing the Israelis to cede land and conclude a serious peace agreement.