Tel Aviv - The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a typical example of the opportunities and guarantees provided by American democracy. AIPAC is playing by the rules set by the U.S. Constitution, lawmakers and political system. Yes, it has used those rules and opportunities to gain advantages. But what's wrong with that? Such clever behavior should be admired, not cursed. In that sense, AIPAC is no different from any other lobby in America; it exists to promote its interests. If AIPAC or its officials are breaking the laws or the rules, put them on trial. AIPAC’s only problem is that it is successful and outstanding, and thus has become an object of envy.

Continue »

Who’s keeping count? Since THE Camp David peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, back in 1978, there have been so many bilateral, multilateral, regional, international, and you-name-it summits and conferences to enhance peace, security, stability and tranquility in the Arab-Palestinian-Israeli conflict that only obsessed media and news freaks can recall all of them. Annapolis is probably going to be more of the same.

Like most past meetings, this one began with high expectations that were eventually shattered by its participants’ narrow-mindedness and lack of vision. Annapolis is doomed to the same fate.

In an unusual consensus, the Israeli right (Netanyahu's Likud) and the diminishing Israeli left share the same bleak analysis: It would have been better if the Israeli government had not agreed to participate. The right fears that, somehow, something positive will come out of the meeting and Israel will be asked to make territorial concessions. The left warns that the projected failure would only worsen the situation and increase the chance of war. For the left, and for many realists, it would have been better to postpone the meeting.

Another truism is that the Bush administration has shown bad management and has done a lousy job in preparing the conference. Instead of turning the gathering of representatives from forty countries into an important milestone on the road to peace, this lack of preparation will turn Annapolis into a mere photo-op.

My only consolation is the reaction of Hamas and its Iranian patrons. If Hamas’s fundamentalist terrorists and Tehran’s anti-peace warriors are both angry about the meeting, it must be a good omen for peace-seekers.

The only true moment of sincerity at the Annapolis Summit was in a back room of the basketball arena where hordes of journalists from all over the world were sitting on flimsy folding chairs, waiting for something to happen.

In that room, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir – dressed in traditional robes and headdress – spoke to a select group of news people whom he had summoned. That was a kind of coded message not to admit Israeli journalists.

Nevertheless, I evaded his minders and leaned forward to hear what he had to say. It was impressive. His English is Oxford-quality eloquent. When he was asked why his boss, the foreign minister Prince Saud, had declared he would not shake hands with Israeli leaders, al-Jubeir replied that, "This is a serious event. This is not theatrics."

In a sense, he was right - but practically wrong. The Annapolis gathering was a non-event on a world scale. The earth was not shaken at the U.S. Naval Academy on Tuesday. It is more than doubtful that anything tangible will come out of the mountains of words that poured out of the conference, preaching peace.

I feel that it's too late to achieve peace before George W. Bush leaves office, as the participants promised to try to do.

But a thought did come to me: Imagine what would have happened had the Palestinian President Yasser Arafat still been alive. An even more ludicrous thought: Imagine it is now 1995 or 1996. Hamas has just launched its first lethal suicide attacks against Israeli buses. And Arafat does listen to Israeli strategists' advice to deal with Hamas with an iron fist.

Had all that happened, there might not be a need now for an Annapolis conference. Israel would probably have found a way to make peace with him. Instead, Arafat used Hamas as his back door channel to terrorism and as his hidden whip against Israel. He used "divide and rule" tactics and set his lieutenants against each other so no one would challenge him.

So when he died, of whatever disease, he left behind a divided Palestinian society. Hamas took advantage of that and eventually staged a successful coup in the Gaza Strip.

The official government, led by Mahmoud Abbas and celebrated by George Bush and most of the world, is weak and lacks the authority to reestablish its rule as sole representative of the Palestinian people.

At the same time, the government of Ehud Olmert – like most previous Israeli governments – is scared to death of initiating a dramatic, daring move to end the occupation.

The Saudi ambassador said that speeches made at the conference need to be matched by deeds. "The proof is in the pudding," he told us reporters. Once again, he was right. I don't believe that both sides (the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority) have the imagination, the vision, and the guts to deliver on the promises of Annapolis.

To make it come through, there is a need for two dramatic and probably traumatic events: a civil war among the Palestinians, in which hopefully the Abbas camp would crush the Hamas fundamentalists; and, on the Israeli side, dismantling settlements and moving 200,000 Jews now in the West Bank – probably sparking a mini-civil war.

The likely result would be fracturing of both societies.

The recipe for resolution has been around – on the table – for more than two decades. It is very simple: two states, end of occupation, dismantling of Jewish settlements, and a fierce fight against terrorism.

True leaders who are committed to the future of their nations might be ready and willing to do it for the sake of generations to come – to establish lasting peace. But Olmert and Abbas are not made of the right stuff for that.

And Big Daddy, President Bush, either does not believe in it or lacks the time and energy to force it on them.