Ralph Peters: "No Lasting Peace"

Soccer Dad has alerted me to the following essay from the NY Post. It says eloquently what most conservatives have been saying in general about the folly of the Annapolis-summit (with numerous Mark Steyn-style one-liners as an added bonus):

[...] In the Middle East, you can't buy peace. You can only buy time. If we want to help at all, the fundamental requirement is to have realistic expectations.

At present, the situation is aggravated by the Bush administration's desperate quest for a headline-worthy foreign-policy success - mirroring the Clinton administration in its closing years. But desperation's a poor basis for dealing with a geopolitical problem of near-infinite complexity, with ill will on every side except our own.

What happens in the course of Middle East "peace" talks under such circumstances? Whether the American administration is Republican or Democrat, it pressures Israel for concessions - since the Arabs won't make any. Prisoner releases precede each summit; territorial handovers come under discussion.

For their parts, Arab leaders and their representatives assume we're sufficiently honored if they just show up. We hear no end of nonsense about the great political risks they're taking, etc. We're suckers for any fat guy in a white robe with an oil can.

Today's session in Annapolis may or may not result in a we-the-undersigned statement or a few unenforceable commitments. [There is now a joint-statement-YG.] And yes, there's merit just in bringing folks together and keeping them talking. But the baseline difficulty is that we want to solve problems for people who don't really want those problems solved.

Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah Party, for example, couldn't accept a genuine peace tomorrow morning - even though Hamas' coup in Gaza has put them up against the wall. Their problem? The most successful jobs program in the Arab world has been Palestinian "resistance" to Israel.[...]

The one place I would quibble is the assumption that Bush is repeating Clinton's failed legacy-quest. True, the determination to plow in such barren pastures begs for some sort of explanation, but I don't think Bush is desperate for a legacy. If he is, the joke is on him, isn't it? I think rather that Bush continues to follow his foreign-policy assumptions. He is convinced, as he has often said, that everyone, without exception, yearns for freedom and a better life. By all rights, the United States should be able to lead a movement for peace, freedom, and sanity. This would require, however, a unity of the left and right worldwide that is no more likely to come about than the Palestinians are to act in their own self-interest.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Tags: Israel, Annapolis, Palestinians, Bush