1) A non-terrorist state as host. It is risible that the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism and a current occupier of a sovereign Arab nation is hosting a peace conference that excludes its own aggressive war as an agenda item. Such hypocrisy is typical of a nation whose only claim to international legitimacy and primacy is its military power. I cannot imagine a worse host for this conference than the United States.
2) The exclusion of Hamas: Hamas, a legitimate and historically significant Palestinian organisation, came to power legitimately through the democratic process but due to the Israel Lobby and support of radical Zionism, was dismissed as a terrorist organisation for its use of force to liberate Palestine. Hamas should eschew violence and accept an Israeli sovereign entity but its use of force, which is rather tepid and episodic, compares to the occupation and savage butchery that Israel imposes on the precious innocent Arabs of Gaza. Gaza is even more undeveloped and economically devastated than Haiti. Israel has blood on its hands and a direct responsibility for the suppression and destruction of so many innocents in that widowed land. The absence of Hamas from Annapolis is emblematic of a Zionist effort to only negotiate with American lackeys and avoid the hard choices that peace relies upon: NEGOTIATING WITH ONE’S ENEMIES.
3) The exclusion of Iran: Leaving Iran out of a peace conference that ostensibly deals with the Israel-Palestinian conflict is another reflection of U.S. incompetence and lack of commitment for an authentic peace. Syria rightfully resisted attending until it was told it could introduce the issue of Israeli occupation and outright theft of the Golan Heights which it stole and even annexed after the 1967 war. While it may be true that you can’t wage war without Egypt and you can’t have peace without Syria, it is equally true that a comprehensive settlement of the underlying fissures in the region, cannot be addressed without involving Iran.
4) A commitment by the Bush administration to end its war crime in Iraq: Here you have a state sponsor of terrorism attempting to convene a successful peace conference when it has the blood of Arab babies on its hands. The American monster propelled by Democratic warhawks such as Senator Hillary Clinton and the neo-conservative cowards who cavalierly spill the blood of American soldiers, refused to even consider a non-violent, diplomatic, PEACEFUL alternative to conflict resolution. It invaded a weak, defenceless, contained Iraq on March 19. 2003. Yet the press is extolling this event as a means for Mr Bush to burnish his legacy. Should one be concerned about the personal leagcy of an American monarch who has never experienced an average American’s struggle to pay bill, educate kids, fend for health care, pay mortgages, meet car payment demands and who don’t garner aeroplanes and marine helicopters to ferry them around from one military venue to another?
These are briefly but I think succinctly why this conference which is less of a peace conference than a putative commitment to initiate one, will probably not succeed. While I won’t call it a sham because whenever nations engage in diplomacy, it is so much preferable to the dog of war. Yet its failure to achieve tangible results has both the burden of history and its lack of inclusiveness as its likely outcome.