President Bush deserves the thanks of the nation and world for getting the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to agree on resuming peace talks. Hardly anyone gave the Annapolis meeting any chance for success (source: Mr. Silva's article in today's print edition of the Tribune). Now it will be interesting to see if Mr. Bush's critics who have called for diplomacy in the Mid East give him any credit. Nah, won't happen.

Israeli and Palestinian peace talks which ignore the fact that Hamas controls the Gaza strip will not be able to produce a solution which will be capable of being implemented.

That is the sad reality.

Corina:

Why did it take W SEVEN YEARS to get involved in this?? Why did he choose to IGNORE the Middle East when he came into office? Thanks to his ignorance, you now have Hamas in charge of the Gaza Strip - because Condi and her friends did not think they could win the election, and did not have a backup plan in place.

As Joe Biden said, maybe Bush should actually visit Israel and the Palestinian Territories. It will take more than some photo-op meetings to get this done.

Even if Olmert and Abbas strike some sort of substantive deal (itself highly unlikely), the Muslim terror groups will ignore it.

I'm a Bush critic, I have called for diplomacy, and I give him credit for attempting. I'm also a Condi critic, I have called for her to start doing her job, and I have given her credit for stopping her regular Africa and Asia photo meetings to focus on the Mid East; talk to nations about supporting Iraq and resolving the I-P problem. I'm a critic of arming nations ME and supplying them with mulla to counter Iran, but I do think that countries respond better to insensitive for talks than threat. Looking back all the strategic arming and paying off kinda set a tone for these talks. I'm a critic of the treatment of Iran and Syria, but as long as we can bully them (we do) enough to move the US Israeli and Palestinian agenda along without war ok; there is more than one way to skin a cat. I'm a critic of the treatment of Hamas I even think it will, like AJF put, remain a problem festering. But I also realize that that's the way the Bush administration wants to pursue it because in their eye the benefits outweigh the costs. It not like counties can't come to agreements in such a way Israel and Palestine. They can. they are called imperfect agreements. At this point int he game dead lock after dead lock. Whatever. As long as once they begin the negotiations that are favorable to puppet leader in Israel and puppet leader in Palestine, get momentum, and turn around to work on the Hamas issue. I'm a critic of the way they forced the players; I acknowledge it--propping US puppets, or putting the US so much into supporting one or the other as much as we do. Yet with everything I don't like and will criticize and it will invariably come up as a down fall (i'm not delusional) speaking as a peon and a mandarin I can see how for the average Israeli or average Palestinians--especially the new generation that has found love through walls-- I hope it works out. However that is, and whoever people try to accomplish this. It is always worth a try.

I truly hope and pray progress in made in these peace talks. It seems, however, that every President (usually near the end of their term/s) tries to stage these. I seriously doubt that very many from the Arab world will see this as anything but the US & Israel trying to get more out of them. And many within Israel will disregard any peace talk as long as there is even one act of Arab terrorism.

Sorry I could have took the time to proof read, and add I'm a lefty loon. I approve of peace talks and accords, John D, even if I might criticize how we get there. That's not hate.

Fair enough, Anon Ymous the Second. But it is funny that you are willing to criticize the U.S. and Israel first, but not Syria and Iran. Please show one example of where either country has done any good.
And, how many Lebanese moderates will Syria assassinate? How often will Syria and Iran supply terror groups like Hamas to disrupt any peace movements?
Bush, the U.S., Israel and Abbas have been down this road before only to have Hamas start bombing innocent Israelis. So, what say you?

Johnny:

Remember, Hamas is now in charge of the Gaza Strip - and they basically thumbed their noses at Bush and went to Iran for a meeting.

As I posted earlier, Bush and Condi pushed for the Palestinian elections - and then were shocked when their favorites did not win the election - and Hamas did. There was NO plan on what to do in case that happened.

Sorta sounds like Iraq when we not greeted with flowers and chocolates, doesn't it??

John D-

Bombing innocent Israelis is a horrific crime.

But so is bombing innocent Palestinians.

Both sides have plenty of blood on their hands.

The only hope for peace is for both sides to be willing to stop the "who killed who first" arguement and to get serious about what is doing best for ALL the people.

Take Northern Ireland as an example. Both sides did horrible things. Peace ther has only become possible when both sides became willing to leave those things in the past.

Little Johnny D,
Syria repelled an attempted attack on the American Embassy. Two Syrian guards lost their lives. Protecting American territory, that's good isn't it.
Iran has arrested, tortured and discarded the dead bodies of al-Qaeda officials trying to pass from Afghanistan into Iraq. That's good isn't it?

How to go to war with Syria and/or Iran?
.
Step 9: Hold "peace" talks between Israel and Palestine to "show" the world you are "serious" about peace.

Step 10: Violate the sovereignty of either nation while claiming you are hunting terrorists and provoke an escalation of violence.

Well I didn't say much about Iran and Syria. Other than I can see how putting pressure on them works (that's what I mean by bulling). Meaning I understand the frame work within which Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Hams type groups pose a concern. The part where I criticize is once we get too close to war with these countries. Bush can rattle and shake all he wants; I just don't favor more hostile relations leading to more war. Not because I can't connect the dots, but because it takes more than a threat for war -- it takes lives and resources.

Iran and Syria.

If I had anything positive to say it have to be that Iran might not have suspended enrichment (although I feel that they are entitled to the bare minimum for energy), but they have cooperate on some outstanding issues with the IAEA, and in terms of enrichment are still "putting forward" initiatives at talks with the EU. (You know like the US and the Summit there is no negotiation but they are trying talks. Once they don't talk that becomes a problem.) The cease fire by Sadar is worth something. I know it isn't perfect.

Syria. Well they did accept the invite to the Summit. They do keep a lot of the refugees from Iraq. That takes a toll on a country. Plus,

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - About 60 percent of the foreign militants fighting in Iraq have come from U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Libya, unidentified U.S. military officials said in a newspaper report on Thursday."

"Syrians -- via whose country many fighters are suspected of reaching Iraq -- made up 8 percent of the individuals listed."

"In the article, military officials said most of the fighters had flown into Damascus or entered Syria through Jordan. Some were reportedly captured and then released by Syrian authorities.

General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, has praised Syria for steps it has taken to crack down on militants entering Iraq. "

"There does appear to have been more robust action by Syria against some foreign fighter networks," he told The Wall Street Journal.

He said the number of foreign fighters entering Iraq each month had dropped by at least one third."

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSRYA22372620071123

They aren't perfect but they seem to be working in some way.

My point about Hamas. What I mean is there two ways of resolving the issue. Either everyone is included in the negotiations who it concerns. Or if you want to you first get the people who can move it along and agree to something, than once that is done, they need to turn around and work on the Hamas issue separately. It might take military force because the problem will fester, but it might also mean some second round of talks specifically aimed at those behind Hamas, and Hamas. It should require the same amount of energy as these talks to resolve.

Really, when you look back to Clinton, probably even to Bush I, Reagan, and Carter, they only time the US Government and President become "Really Concerned" about the Middle East Peace Process is in the last years of their terms. When all is said and done, this should be the #1 front in the War on Terror. Since the terrorists use the whole "Palestinians don't have their own land" issue, with an established state their main argument against the US and Israel would be moot.

And from another point of view, if a Palestinian State attacked Israel, Israel would then be justified (according to the UN) to use force, right now they look like the bully. But, maybe that is why the Palestinians have in the past shot down any final peace - looking like the victim is working for them right now, might not if they were a legitimate government

We need to dispose of the cliché that Hamas wishes to destroy Israel. It is a childish, unthinking assertion, lacking in reality, and intended to arouse fears.

Parties who do not agree on many things can still live side by side so long as they both follow agreed protocols. There are many, many examples of this.

If Israel actually thought it was even possible, they would have never subsidized Hamas in the first place.

No force or party in this region of the world has even a dream of having the capacity to destroy Israel.

Starting with that basic truth - rather than the fantasy of little David surrounded by Philistines - a genuine peace can be achieved.

Israel's right wing uses this nonsense about destroying Israel as a lever for power.

It is paranoid fantasy, but as we all know paranoid fantasies can genuinely affect people. Just look at America during the Red Scares of post 9/11.

Many Israelis want the land without the Palestinians. There is ample evidence of this over decades. That really is the main reason for a lack of peace.

What may indeed destroy Israel ultimately is its utter failure to achieve peace with its neighbors, its arrogant, violent behavior towards every neighbor.

Can anyone maintain a garrison state forever? Does, in fact, anyone want to?

The costs of a reasonable peace with a few relatively small risks are less than continuing the insanity we have now.

You should see what the May 15th Prophecy has to say about the Annapolis Conference and the President role in prophecy

Do a Google search of the May 15th prophecy and you will see for yourself

Or go to
http://lastdaywatchers.blogspot.com/