What’s in a word?

Regional coverage of the events in Annapolis come from the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya news networks (think Fox and CNN for a reference point). Al-Jazeera is calling the event “the Annapolis Convention” while Al-Arabiya is calling it “the Annapolis Meeting”. Is that intentional? Certainly, a convention sounds more formal (and perhaps indicative of greater hopes of a workable outcome); but one cannot discount the possibility that one may be reading more into words than one ought to. If my Arabic were better, and I could more fully understand what the respective channels were talking about, I might end this mystery, but alas.

It may also interest the one or two people who read this blog to note that in the aftermath of the live remarks (that I watched on BBC World), I have yet to see coverage on the other main regional news channel, Al Manar (Hezbollah’s news station). Al-Manar has been more focused on discussing the ongoing political deadlock in Lebanon, relegating news of the Annapolis Convention/Meeting to the ticker like an amusing afterthought. Neither have I seen any coverage on the Syrian channel, but they rarely do the news to begin with.

Update: As I’m composing this, I’m watching the Syrian news. They’re calling it a “conference” as well. News of the conference is followed up by a discussion of the occupied Golan Heights and the UN.

 

War and Peace

It’s been difficult trying to catch the Syrian news, so it’s hard to guage local speculation on the events in Annapolis, but one can imagine that it’s about as skeptical as the speculation of Western pundits. Given the size and scope of the Annapolis conference, including the guest list, there is some cause for optimism, but like so many others have probably said, that could also lead to more of a let down if nothing substantial gets resolved.

 

Word of the day: Momentum

Any opportunity for possible peace in the Middle East is worth pursuing, so it was nice to see the Quartet come together, although from the looks of things, they didn’t really have much to report other than their word of the day. Still, the possibility of Syria attending the ME peace conference is good (although lettuce jump for joy when it actually happens). It’s important to get all the big local players involved…so that there is more blame to go around as they piss away the opportunity (or so says the cynic).

Secretary Rice did well to note that there is still much work to be done. Most of the work making the press rounds involves the creation of a Palestinian state. But there are at least two other important considerations: the ongoing plight of the Palestinian refugees (which, admittedly, may be resolved upon the creation of an independent Palestine) and the even more troublesome issue of Jerusalem. Al-Quds is actually probably the biggest obstacle to peace since there has been no maneuvering or hints at accommodation on who gets to control Jerusalem. The short term solution is simple and obvious - and one that has been proposed before to the dismay of the two central parties: have Jerusalem under UN control. Yes, the UN has issues itself. I mean, it can’t even get involved in serious crises like Darfur in a reasonable time. Still, there is no denying that right now, the UN is the most respected international organization in operation and as such is the only entity with enough credibility to tackle the problem until a permanent solution is found, which at the current rate of progress in the Middle East will be right around the time that Hell freezes over.

So take your momentum with a grain of salt, but don’t throw in the towel just yet.

 

The Two-State Mirage

The news here has been discussing Secretary Rice’s ME visit in which she hopes to discuss getting the two-state solution back on track. Reading from various newspapers, it is my understanding that they are looking for broad-based support. Curiously, however, it seems that key players will likely not be in attendance.

The Jerusalem Post had the following to say in today’s edition: “Senior Israeli officials said that while Saudi participation was desirable, the key was to get “open support” for the diplomatic process and a two-state solution to the conflict “from additional players.” The officials said that this “broad support” could be gained even if the Saudis did not show up, if countries such as Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and Morocco attended”.

OK, to be fair, the Islamic Middle East is not just Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc. and should include the other countries mentioned above, but since Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon share borders with Israel and the Palestinian Territories, one would think that their presence would be mandatory. One also has to wonder why Iraq wasn’t mentioned in the list of countries attending. Of course, that’s not to say that they won’t. It might just have been excluded from the Post’s article. However, if they are truly staying away, one must wonder how effective this conference will be if the US cannot even get an ally like the new Iraqi government to press for peace and the two-state solution.

 

Harb in the Making 2

Reviewing news from SANA (and a few Western sources), I noticed that Syria has lodged a complaint at the UN for the Israeli violation of airspace. Curiously, that happened about six days after the incident, leading me to wonder why? Especially in light of recent revelations that it might be because of Syria’s alleged nuclear program. That to me would signal a big-time confrontation between Syria and Israel (which only now seems to be forming). But that still doesn’t really explain why the six day delay. The only reason I can think of is that Syria had no idea what specifically was targeted or the extent of the strikes. But I wouldn’t fall for that. There’s no way any government can be that oblivious.

Of course the qeustion of why the delay is probably not the important one to be asking right now. I’m personally more interested in finding out where this is leading, especially in light of speculation beginning in the spring/summer that Syria and Israel were inching towards a war (or that it was only a matter of time before it happened).

 

Harb in the making?

When I first came in to the cafe today, I read on Google that Israel violated airspace in northern Syria and may have bombed some targets. Whee! Like I want to deal with that kind of excitement. Also, because of where I am, if a war did break out, it would probably be easier for me to get out of harm’s way if I went to Turkey (i.e., around the same area that Israel flew over).

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But probably not interesting in a good way.