Annapolis...

From commentarymagazine.com:

Defining Annapolis Down
Noah Pollak

Is there anything left to be said about the Annapolis conference that hasn’t been said, at this point, dozens of times before? Well, not really. But there are a few smaller items worth discussing.

On Monday a force of 300 Palestinian Authority policemen were sent to the Balata refugee camp near Nablus, a stronghold of the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, in order to demonstrate that the Palestinian Authority is attempting to fulfill its Phase I obligations under the Road Map. Remember the Road Map? That document has been living a strange existence in recent months, as it has been both invoked and ignored by all parties involved, at their convenience. The Balata operation was about as symbolic as it gets, with PA police taking up positions in the camp, trading a few shots with members of the Brigades, and then packing up and leaving twelve hours later.

For years The PA did nothing about the Road Map but offered various lame excuses as to why it couldn't, it wouldn't, it shouldn't comply with it and why Israel should... Could their sudden show of "interest" have an ulterior motive?

But the simple fact that a group of armed men, called the PA police, exchanged gunfire with a Palestinian terrorist group—the Martyr’s Brigades are also heavily involved in terrorizing Palestinians—will be used as leverage for demands for Israeli concessions, such as prisoner releases and a reduction in the IDF presence in the West Bank. If Phase I of the Road Map suddenly is being invoked again, the Israelis should re-read what it entails and insist on more than a half-day, merely symbolic PA police parade through Balata. Phase I is supposed to be permanent.

Frankly, as long as we have the likes of Olmert, the Invertebrate, et al bowing and kowtowing to Condi, that brilliant political scientist who is taking lessons from James "F... the Jews" Baker and the peanut bandit, Jimmy Carter... you can bet there will be a redefinition of Phase I and the actual duration of "permanent."

The rhetoric surrounding the conference has changed of late, and I think some people are making the mistake of taking Ehud Olmert’s lofty declarations seriously. The Israelis have done a good job of performing a sort of good cop/bad cop routine with their American interlocutors, and with the media as well. In front of the cameras, Olmert speaks in dulcet clichés about hopefulness and breakthroughs and the great promise of Annapolis, while in private meetings, people like Ehud Barak and Avigdor Lieberman have used hard facts to slap down Rice’s peace-process dreamscape. Such facts include these: Israel will retain freedom of action for the IDF in the Palestinian territories; Israel will not withdraw from the West Bank until a comprehensive missile defense system is in place; Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu, two members of Olmert’s coalition, will bring down the government if red lines are crossed; etc..

I wish I could share Mr. Pollak's optimism in the Israeli government. Unfortunately, based on past performance I hold no illusions as to how far Allmerde is really willing to reach before he hardens against the PA's inaction, intransigence and murderous lies. As for Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu bolting the government, my hopes are practically non-existent. As long as Allmerde is able to keep buying them off, they'll find plenty of excuses for staying in and explaining it as actually being there to curb the PM's enthusiasm in destroying the country even faster than he already is.

This disconnect has created an interesting dynamic, a sort of inverse relationship between rhetoric and reality, in which officials from all sides speak increasingly in platitudes, as the likelihood of anything concrete resulting from Annapolis continues to decrease. If the peace process has drifted off into Never Never Land, why not at least say the nice things that people enjoy hearing about peace processes? These declarations are starting to sound like the slogans affixed to those colorful motivation posters that can be purchased out of the SkyMall catalogue. Condi: “We can succeed. Failure is simply not an option.” Tony Blair: “Intentions will not suffice; only actions will.” Olmert: “This is an opportunity and it must be seized.”

Rice’s most recent trip, from which she returned Monday, was her eight to the region this year, and she will return for a ninth visit before the month is up. For all this activity and the trainwreck of clichés it has generated, remarkably little has been resolved. It is still uncertain which Arab states will show up in Annapolis, and under what conditions; the entire Hamas/Gaza crisis is being ignored thoroughly; and Annapolis itself continues to be defined downward, at this point being proposed as a sort of timeline marker to signify the start of negotiations that the participants hope to complete by the end of the Bush presidency. With goals like these, how can it not be a success?

For failure to truly be "not an option" Ms. Rice should abandon the unreal Realpolitik that historically has only served to compound today's problems around the world. Who are her mentors, the men she draws inspiration from?

James Carter is the former President whose legacy to the world includes, among other things, enabling the rise to power of the Ayatollahs in Iran and putting Mugabe at the helm in Zimbabwe. Did the Peanut Bandit's actions prove to be of any benefit or... do we all realize the disasters his foreign policy has wrought?!?!?

James "F... the Jews" Baker, proved to be an unmitigated calamity to American foreign policy! It is thanks to him that we are currently at war in Iraq. As the chief Consigliere of the Royal House of Saud, as a man who (when representing the US) was more interested in securing juicy deals for his firms clients than for his country, CAN BAKER BE TRUSTED TO GIVE GOOD, UNBIASED, ADVICE?!?!? The answer, gentle reader, is blowing in the wind and it's disgustingly unpleasant!

Tony Blair declared: “Intentions will not suffice; only actions will.” But... he has already made it clear that his idea of "actions" means more confidence bolstering for Abbas and his crew... Hasn't Israel tried that over and over and over? What fruit have these confidence bolstering "gestures" ever produced, beyond further bloodshed and more demands?

As Sarah Lehman wrote, The November Conference looms ahead and forebodes disaster. Relinquishing any part of Eretz Yisrael, especially Yerushalayim, Yehudah and Shomron, is relinquishing the Jewish heart in its heartland. It poses an immediate and irrevocable threat to Jewish lives. At this juncture we cannot afford to witness more tacit support in or out of the Knesset for such perfidy. Frankly, gentle reader, the upcoming Annapolis Conference as it stands now is merely a modern day "Munich" conference where Israel is about to be stripped of any semblance of a country.

This Munich type conference's eventual aim is not a Two State solution, but a One State (NOT a Jewish one, mind you, if Annapolis is to be considered a success by the likes of Rice, Baker and Carter!). Aside from it's effect on the Zionist Entity and dem Jooz, how will this Annapolis "Munich" Conference help America's own efforts on the War on Terror? HOW WILL SACRIFICING A FEW MILLION JEWS TO ALLAH'S FOLLOWERS MAKE THIS A SAFER, BETTER, WORLD?!?!? Frankly, it will only whet the appetite of the blood thirsty IslamoFascists in their pursuit of the big prize... the whole of the western world!!!! Could it be that John Edwards saying the War on Terror is merely a bumper sticker, will become true after all?!?!?

Chaim

Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost