Quest for Middle East peace
Friday, 30 November 2007
THE conference at Annapolis in the USA that started off from Wednesday would mainly be considered an outcome of the diplomacy of the government of President George W Bush to make it happen. Although coming late in the tenure of the US President, the event has understandably generated interest all over the world. For it is in the Middle East today that the greatest danger to international peace and stability is feared to exist. There is every chance that the current animosities, tensions and conflicts in the region could fuel an Armageddon that had been prophesied by quarters ranging from politicians and astrologers to hard core security analysts. The volatility of the region has reached a peak and at the centre-point of it is the Arab-Israeli dispute. With this long lingering problem reasonably settled, the region and the world can be significantly hedged from incidents snowballing into a large scale war and worsening of conflicts that would only have a shattering impact on the global economy. Thus, all sensible people in the world would be one in their longing for real progress to be made at Annapolis this week.
As it is, the bringing together of some 40 countries to the conference table is a success of sorts. Not long ago, Saudi Arabia and Syria, had consistently disagreed to sit in a conference with the Israelis. They had prior demands to be fulfilled for doing so such as Israel vacating Arab lands occupied by it and giving back the Palestinians their due. But the situation has now changed a lot. All concerned have now become softer in their disposition, indicating that the regional powers are concerned and have become more flexible to join in a peace effort and make it a success. Realisation has also dawned on Israel that it cannot perpetually and successfully go on militarily confronting its neighbours and ensure its security always through military might. Even the invincibility of the Israeli military was proved wrong last year in their clashing with the tiny bands of the Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon in which they suffered astonishing reverses. Thus, Israelis are also aware to a higher degree than ever before the imperative of clinching a broad-based peace deal with the Arabs as the only credible assurance of their living in peace in the future. Large sections of the Palestinians who have suffered so much from deaths and destructions for generations, have similar aspirations. Thus, basing on this eagerness for peace on both sides, an opportunity for working out a peace deal has brightened and the same needs to be steered to a successful conclusion. The US should play its catalytic role in the negotiations with maximum persuasion and pressure. Indeed, the presence and activities of a truly honest broker can help reduce differences dramatically bridging the previous irreconcilable positions.
But pessimism, so far, is noted to be the greater feature about this conference in different quarters. Some of them have criticised it as putting the cart before the horse or making too much of a ceremony of it even before the issues are discussed. Others have drawn attention to the extremists on the two sides who remain so keen to scuttle any peace process. However, notwithstanding the surge of negativism about the Annapolis conference, it deserves to be encouraged and supported, for the alternative can be no other than a worse breakdown of the peace and the grim consequences thereof for international peace and stability and the global economy. The holding of this conference does otherwise reflect a pledge to carry forward negotiations for achieving a tangible peace deal. Efforts should be directed by all concerned to translate this pledge into tangible actions for easing tensions and keeping the parties in the conflict committed to a peace process.
As it is, the bringing together of some 40 countries to the conference table is a success of sorts. Not long ago, Saudi Arabia and Syria, had consistently disagreed to sit in a conference with the Israelis. They had prior demands to be fulfilled for doing so such as Israel vacating Arab lands occupied by it and giving back the Palestinians their due. But the situation has now changed a lot. All concerned have now become softer in their disposition, indicating that the regional powers are concerned and have become more flexible to join in a peace effort and make it a success. Realisation has also dawned on Israel that it cannot perpetually and successfully go on militarily confronting its neighbours and ensure its security always through military might. Even the invincibility of the Israeli military was proved wrong last year in their clashing with the tiny bands of the Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon in which they suffered astonishing reverses. Thus, Israelis are also aware to a higher degree than ever before the imperative of clinching a broad-based peace deal with the Arabs as the only credible assurance of their living in peace in the future. Large sections of the Palestinians who have suffered so much from deaths and destructions for generations, have similar aspirations. Thus, basing on this eagerness for peace on both sides, an opportunity for working out a peace deal has brightened and the same needs to be steered to a successful conclusion. The US should play its catalytic role in the negotiations with maximum persuasion and pressure. Indeed, the presence and activities of a truly honest broker can help reduce differences dramatically bridging the previous irreconcilable positions.
But pessimism, so far, is noted to be the greater feature about this conference in different quarters. Some of them have criticised it as putting the cart before the horse or making too much of a ceremony of it even before the issues are discussed. Others have drawn attention to the extremists on the two sides who remain so keen to scuttle any peace process. However, notwithstanding the surge of negativism about the Annapolis conference, it deserves to be encouraged and supported, for the alternative can be no other than a worse breakdown of the peace and the grim consequences thereof for international peace and stability and the global economy. The holding of this conference does otherwise reflect a pledge to carry forward negotiations for achieving a tangible peace deal. Efforts should be directed by all concerned to translate this pledge into tangible actions for easing tensions and keeping the parties in the conflict committed to a peace process.