Between the Madrid peace conference, convened in the Spanish capital during the fall of 1991 and "Bush's" peace conference to be held on American soil next fall, Arabs have lost papers, burnt "cards" and relinquished "stands". All they left behind used to be of use to them in bearing tough negotiations with Israelis, and resisting any reaction to the biased position of their American "friend", who should be impartial. Arabs have welcomed, both publicly and indirectly, Bush Jr.'s call to organize a peace conference, although they are still uninformed of its "agenda", and do not know whether all Arab parties that are connected to the conflict with Israel are participating in it or not. They (Arabs) had responded favorably to the call of Bush Senior around 16 years ago, and sat around the negotiations table with Israelis, conducting both bilateral talks with Arab parties concerned by the conflict (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine), and multilateral talks. They have examined issues of conflict under the slogan the exchange of "Land for Peace", and UN Security Council Resolutions 242,338 and 425. The Madrid conference was convened following the call and initiative of Bush Senior, in the wake of the second Gulf war. It was co-sponsored by the US and the ex-USSR. As for the "Junior's Conference", it will be held in a world that no longer bears USSR. Thus the US will both call for it and sponsor it, while benefiting as well. It is no secret that the participants in the conference, which are not even specified yet, are sure that the results of the Jr.'s conference will not resemble those of the father's. The latter had received moral and political backing, at a time when it desperately needed the world to agree on it after the Gulf war. Time passed, and Jr, now needs an international peace conference on the Middle East, after the failure of American politics in Iraq, the Middle East and other areas of the planet, as well as on several issues that drew the Americans and drowned them.
Jr. is looking to improve an image rejected on the inside and maimed on the outside. Looking in his father's old files, he found his cure in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and picked it up to play the anthem of peace that as we know, needs a true political will to diagnose the illness and prescribe the treatment, and not conference upon conference. The treatment of such a problem is easy, but the sponsor will only give it to the weaker of parties.
After Madrid, Jordanians and Palestinians each continued his own path in negotiating with Israel. For their part, both Lebanon and Syria stuck to the unity of their negotiating track. In their last Foreign Minister meeting, Arabs demanded the participation of Lebanon and Syria in the upcoming conference. Arab League Secretary-General welcomed the idea of the conference, although he remarked that its plan was not clearly laid out and participants are not specified yet, but he was not fearful of its results.
However, a common impression exists that neither will the conference solve any issue, nor will Israelis give Arabs anything, while the latter have lost their influence. The difference between both conferences is that while the father sought a perfect picture, the son only wants a part of it. No Israeli-American agreement exists on a solution that includes Lebanon and Syria. It seems that Bush Jr. wants a moral, mediatized, political victory related to the Palestinian issue alone, but it is unlikely for both him and Arabs to win at the same time. All conferences that were convened and negotiations that went on between Israelis and Palestinians with the patronage of Americans, the Quartet, or the Egyptians were to no avail. What's more, some of their results have created bad situations that aggravated the Palestinian dilemma. The ongoing situation in the Gaza Strip currently is the result of Israel's stubbornness, and the American support it receives to the detriment of Palestinian parties, including the Authority in which Israelis and Americans see a party who could be negotiated with. Nevertheless, they have not given that partner any privilege over other Palestinian parties who could not be negotiating partners. Thus, the result is the same after every single conference: the partner that accepted to negotiate leaves with a loss, while he one who refused to negotiate wins, because he did not lose anything.
Jr. is looking to improve an image rejected on the inside and maimed on the outside. Looking in his father's old files, he found his cure in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and picked it up to play the anthem of peace that as we know, needs a true political will to diagnose the illness and prescribe the treatment, and not conference upon conference. The treatment of such a problem is easy, but the sponsor will only give it to the weaker of parties.
After Madrid, Jordanians and Palestinians each continued his own path in negotiating with Israel. For their part, both Lebanon and Syria stuck to the unity of their negotiating track. In their last Foreign Minister meeting, Arabs demanded the participation of Lebanon and Syria in the upcoming conference. Arab League Secretary-General welcomed the idea of the conference, although he remarked that its plan was not clearly laid out and participants are not specified yet, but he was not fearful of its results.
However, a common impression exists that neither will the conference solve any issue, nor will Israelis give Arabs anything, while the latter have lost their influence. The difference between both conferences is that while the father sought a perfect picture, the son only wants a part of it. No Israeli-American agreement exists on a solution that includes Lebanon and Syria. It seems that Bush Jr. wants a moral, mediatized, political victory related to the Palestinian issue alone, but it is unlikely for both him and Arabs to win at the same time. All conferences that were convened and negotiations that went on between Israelis and Palestinians with the patronage of Americans, the Quartet, or the Egyptians were to no avail. What's more, some of their results have created bad situations that aggravated the Palestinian dilemma. The ongoing situation in the Gaza Strip currently is the result of Israel's stubbornness, and the American support it receives to the detriment of Palestinian parties, including the Authority in which Israelis and Americans see a party who could be negotiated with. Nevertheless, they have not given that partner any privilege over other Palestinian parties who could not be negotiating partners. Thus, the result is the same after every single conference: the partner that accepted to negotiate leaves with a loss, while he one who refused to negotiate wins, because he did not lose anything.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento