by Mark Silva
The Bush administration could not have set expectations any lower than they are for next week's summit of Middle East and Arab leaders at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.
"If the Bush administration intended to lower expectations ahead of the Middle East peace conference it is hosting in Annapolis... the effort has been a resounding success,'' writes Michael Moran, editor of CFR.org at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Yes, Arab leaders have accepted invitations to attend Tuesday's summit. Yes, Bush will meet invdividually with both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestiniani Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on the eve of the summit. But no, the White House is not promising "instant results'' from this long-planned meeting.
"In spite of an upbeat assessment from David Welch, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, the ground looks anything but fertile,'' the award-winning Moran writes in his account of The Road to Annapolis.
"Prodded by (Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice, the primary diplomatic actors—Israel and the Palestinian Authority—spent weeks in a fruitless effort to agree to a joint declaration on a “two-state solution” that Washington hoped would form the foundation of the conference,'' he writes. "In the latest twist, rhetorical outrage swept the Arab world when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert insisted the Palestinian side accept the notion of Israel as a Jewish state, as opposed to a multicultural one, as a precondition to any grand bargain.
"On a political level, things are hardly better,'' he adds. "A presidential election year in the United States limits the Bush administration’s options as candidates on both sides vie to be seen as a friend of Israel. Among Palestinians, meanwhile, the week preceding the conference brought new violence in Gaza, the destitute Palestinian appendage seized from President Mahmoud Abbas’ government by the Hamas movement last summer. ''
For more, see his report at CFR.org.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
But Bruce says we've defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq. Shouldn't expectations be sky high?
Posted by: jethro | November 23, 2007 3:18 PM
Better yet don't have it. This will guarantee success for the administration.
How confident are you that the Annapolis Conference will bring a solution to Middle East turmoil?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1067
.
Posted by: PollM | November 23, 2007 3:57 PM
Jethro,
Did you choose that name because of your a simple minded dim wit?
Your post above seems to indicate that has a high probability.
The war against terror is best left to people with an understanding of the challenges we face from a radical religion that has persisted in spreading their faith by the sword for over a millennium and on the other side the radical left wing dems that want to surrender to prove that Bush is the bad guy.
Thankfully we have choices in the upcoming presidential race that will enable us to continue the effort to bring democracy to all - including women in the Middle East, to stay on the offensive against the evil of fanatical Islamists.
Posted by: CJ Testify | November 23, 2007 4:50 PM
Oh Jethro,
It's so hard to defeat al-Qaida when the democRAT party keeps urging them on to defeat us!
But! Our brave soliders,led by Gen. Patraeus will not be defeated by a bunch of rag-tag suicide bombers and the democRAT party.
Good-Luck to you and your losing ilk!
The Great News from Iraq is your worst enemy...
GOD-Bless out soldiers!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | November 23, 2007 6:53 PM
Since Senator Obama claims that he can create peace in the Middle East merely by talking to the parties, perhaps he should be allowed to attend this conference and try out his golden tongue.
I'm sure the Death Camp deniers and 9/11 "truthers" who make up the Muslim world will change their murderous minds and sing "Kumbaya", once they hear the eloquence of the world's most brilliant and charismatic politician.
Posted by: Bruce | November 23, 2007 6:57 PM
Maybe George will make all attendees to the Annapolis conference "Join the Navy and see the world". Maybe they will get to understand their neighbors. Fat chance, however.
Posted by: gac12 | November 23, 2007 9:59 PM
Let us all concede that this is just a photo op to defend against the charge that Bush has been remiss in not working for peace. This meeting will be a success if no harm is done. Expectations should be low.
Posted by: c. perry | November 23, 2007 10:13 PM
Success: Low expectations for Middle East summit
I have about as much faith in this Neonut run adminstration actually getting some foreign policy work done right as I do of the Cubs ever winning the World Series.
N-O-N-E!
I wonder if Condi will go out and buy a new pair of shoes for this historic meeting?
Posted by: John E | November 23, 2007 11:11 PM
C Perry, Bush has been working for peace for the past six years. He lead a successful joint negotiation over North Korea. He gave the Taliban the opportunity to hand over bin laden. They didn't, so we went in and have a quality leader in Afghanistan in Karzai. Iraq is hopefully on its way to becoming a stable, democratic country.
There was a time when liberals were all for spreading democracy. But these days, most of the Left is in favor of folks like Hussein, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, and any other despot they happen to like.
And CJ, Jethro is a simpleton. That is why I call him Beverly Hillbilly Jethro.
Posted by: John D | November 24, 2007 12:05 AM
They'll claim success all right...if everyone invited comes to the party and has their photo op with Mr. Bush!
Posted by: lochnessmonster | November 24, 2007 8:53 AM
Anyone here hear how the Iraqi Government political reconcilliation is coming along?
Are we there yet?
Posted by: Doug Zook | November 24, 2007 9:57 AM
Doug, how about waking up and smelling the roses. The political reconciliation hasn't occurred at the national level, but it has been occurring at local levels. Does that mean everything will work out? No. But there are bubbles of success.
The fact is the surge has been working, something you were against. The fact is Baghdad is more at peace, something you apparently have been against. The fact is Iraqis are turning on Al Qaeda, something you apparently are against.
In essence, you and your brethren are mired in defeat, seek and want defeat because your entire beings want nothing more than defeat because of your hatred of Bush and of this country.
Posted by: John D | November 24, 2007 11:01 AM
[quote]
Bush has been working for peace for the past six years. He lead a successful joint negotiation over North Korea.
Posted by: John D | November 24, 2007 12:05 AM
[/quote]
Geographically Challenged Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", you are so wrong - as usual.
On Jun 20, 2007, Bush sent Christopher Hill, assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs to N. Korea, the first visit in FIVE YEARS by a senior American official. How do you negotiate peace with someone when Dubya refused to even TALK to them?
From this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/world/asia/21korea.html?ex=1340078400&en=7cd9f7787d43c0f5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
"But for years the administration has refused to engage one on one with the North Koreans. Ms. Rice had to maneuver around Vice President Dick Cheney, officials said in February, to reach the deal that gives the North hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel oil in return for step-by-step disablement of its facilities. It was exactly the kind of grand bargain the administration had avoided for years, as Mr. Cheney and others argued that the United States should not prolong the life of the North Korean government of Kim Jong-il, but rather seek ways to speed its demise."
and
"The last time an American delegation traveled to Pyongyang to negotiate, it ended badly. Mr. Hill’s predecessor, James Kelly, went to Pyongyang in 2002 and opened the talks by telling the North Koreans that the Untied States had evidence they had purchased centrifuges and other equipment, and were breaking a 1994 accord. The Americans said the North first confirmed it had obtained the equipment, then later denied it.
That started a confrontation that resulted in a cutoff of American fuel oil supplies to the North. In retaliation, the North ejected the international inspectors and moved its nuclear fuel for what it said was conversion into plutonium."
Yep, that sure sounds like pResident Doogie Howser's administration working towards peace for the last 6 years. Only in your dreams, "journalist".
Or maybe you should read this story, titled " How the Bush administration let North Korea get nukes" printed May 2004. Link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
Letting North Korea have a successful nuclear weapon program is such a great way to foster peace, right? Just like Dubya's trying to do with Iran, right?
There are only another 50,000 or so stories that I can link to that came up after 2 seconds searching Google. Try it sometime - you may learn a thing or two (like how Cuba is NOT in the Gulf of Mexico but TOTALLY resides in the Caribbean Sea.)
Posted by: BC | November 24, 2007 11:34 AM