Oil Exporters Ignore Iran’s Call for Embargo Over Gaza War

Hello from Lahore, Pakistan!  I just arrived today and plan to base here for at least the next six months.  There is so much going on here at the moment that I feel very fortunate to have a front row seat.  I am extremely eager to hear about new and interesting story ideas here in the country so I invite you all to submit some suggestions.  

In the meantime, I wrote the story below in Dubai last week regarding calls for an oil embargo against supporters of Israel over the Gaza crisis.  As of today, about 1,000 Palestinians have been killed as the result of Israel’s attack on Gaza, most of them civilians.  Please consider ways in which you can help the poor people of Gaza rebuild after this destructive conflict with Israel.

by VIVIAN SALAMA

MIDDLE EAST TIMES

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Cozy economic ties with the West and cool heads have led the Arab Gulf’s leading oil exporters to ignore calls by Iran for an oil embargo against supporters of Israel over the Jewish state’s military offensive in Gaza. 

Mirfaysal Bagherzadeh, brigadier-general of Iran’s hard-line Revolutionary Guard, has urged Muslim countries to cut oil exports to Israel’s allies as punishment for their inaction against the its “unequal war” on the Palestinian territory.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, responded this week saying that the use of oil as a weapon in the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a solution.

“The oil producers who need their income … are not going to do that,” he said at a news conference in Riyadh. “The use of oil, especially at this time, is an idea that is at least past its worth.”

The comments from Tehran echoed sentiments by members of Bahrain’s lower house of parliament earlier in the week that “all retaliation options” should be considered by Arab governments against the Israeli aggression.

While the tiny Gulf kingdom is not a major oil exporter, it is home to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.

“Bahraini and Kuwaiti parliaments are quite renowned for nationalistic and even Islamist voices that do not necessarily reflect the position of their particular governments,” said Neil Partrick, assistant professor of international studies at the American University of Sharjah.

The renewed Israeli attacks in Gaza have claimed nearly 1,000 lives since they started on Dec. 27.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and a delegation of European Union foreign ministers have been meeting with Arab heads-of-state in an attempt to broker a cease-fire and bring both parties back to the negotiating table.

Israel’s government has been accused of heavy-handed tactics resulting in huge destruction of infrastructure and high civilian casualties.

Protesters have come out in large numbers in cities across the region demanding that their governments take action to stop Israel and make it take responsibility for the heavy losses.

A statement released this week by the Saudi cabinet accused “the policy of war, violence, murder and torture practiced by Israel against the Gaza Strip and throughout Palestine” as demonstrative of the “extremist political parties in Israel and abroad aiming at [the] restructuring of the region of the Middle East according to their terms.”

The Saudi government also criticized American nepotism toward Israel. Speaking at this week’s U.S.-Gulf Forum, the Saudi deputy foreign minister said that the United States has “adopted policies full of flaws against the Gulf nations and the Middle East while it has been extending all-out support to Israel.”

For countries in the Gulf, their oil wealth has historically proven to be a mighty weapon in times of turmoil. Flash back to the now infamous oil embargo by Arab producers during the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and the armies of Egypt and Syria. The boycott sent shock waves around the world – the market price for oil soaring almost immediately from $3 a barrel to $12.

Arab oil producers would subsequently take a hit, however, as consumption dropped by 5 percent over the following two years. The crisis served as a wake-up call for countries in the West to seek alternative sources of energy and ultimately, reduce dependency on oil imports.

Today, Saudi Arabia is the only major Middle East oil supplier to the United States. The United Arab Emirates, Oman and Iran sell mostly to Asia, while Kuwait divides its exports among countries in Asia and Europe, while sending only a small amount to the United States.

“So the phrase ‘we need to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil’ is actually a misnomer,” said Raja Kiwan, an energy analyst with PFC Energy, a Bahrain-based consultancy. “Most of [Iran's] oil is sold to Asia, so the comments by the Revolutionary Guard should be seen as political rhetoric.”

Like other oil producers in the region, Iran depends on oil revenue for as much as 90 percent of its foreign income – and is currently suffering as the result of plummeting oil prices. An export ban is therefore believed by analysts to be in no one’s interest – most of all, the oil producers.

“The GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] has no appetite for an oil embargo because the embargo of the 1970’s was quite damaging economically for the Gulf countries,” noted Partrick.

Martin Lovegrove, vice chairman of oil and gas for Standard Chartered Bank in London said that oil producers must consider the implications an oil embargo could have on their domestic economies.

“Some, if not the majority, of these countries would certainly have to tighten their belts should they have an embargo, and not just for the short-term,” he said.

“An embargo could increase prices again at a time of true economic sensitivity in the world financial, business and personal economic markets [and] this could delay any real term recovery in prices.”

Dubai ruler cancels New Years celebrations

I just received word from a friend in Dubai that Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, has ordered the cancellation of all New Year celebration in Dubai in support of the people of Gaza.

In a statement issued by the state news agency, WAM, late tonight, Sheikh Mohammed told authorities to take the necessary steps to ensure the cancellation of planned events and “all forms of celebrations marking the New Year.”

While it is nice to see that the Arab Gulf countries are taking measures to acknowledge the atrocities taking place in the Gaza Strip, they could be doing a lot more seeing as oil puts them in a position of great power and influence.

——————————————–

 

Fireworks display near the Burj Al Arab hotel on Jan 1 2008 to welcome the New Year in Dubai. This year, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Vice President and Prime minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai has ordered a cancellation of all New Year celebration. Pawan Singh / The National

Political Storm Finds a Columbia Professor

As a former student of Rashid Khalidi, I can say with confidence that the accusations by Sarah Palin and John McCain of the professor’s “radical” associations to the PLO are absolutely outrageous and infuriating.  The fact that they would dedicate so much time to such a trivial (and false) subject just days before the election, when the country’s economy is tanking and its troops are dying, confirms in my mind the fact that a McCain/Palin ticket will only lead our country into further catastrophe.  There are plenty of people around the world who regard advisors to the Bush administration as also having links to a “terrorist organization.” What they have done to Dr Khalidi is, in my opinion, defamatory and I really hope that Americans recognize that.  

Political Storm Finds a Columbia Professor

By MARC SANTORA and ELISSA GOOTMAN

Published: October 30, 2008

Rashid Khalidi had been bracing for the storm for months, friends said

Since an April news report detailing his relationship with Senator Barack Obama, Mr. Khalidi, a Middle East scholar and passionate defender ofPalestinian rights, had waited to see himself caricatured by Republicans as part of a rogues’ gallery of Obama associates, which has come to include the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. andWilliam C. Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground.

He was surprised, the friends said, that so little criticism came — until this last frenzied week before the election, when Senator John McCain cited the April article in The Los Angeles Times about a dinner Mr. Obama attended in Mr. Khalidi’s honor in 2003, and questioned Mr. Obama’s commitment to Israel.

In recent days, Republican partisans have accused Mr. Khalidi, a professor at Columbia University since 2003, of everything from anti-Semitism to baby-sitting for Mr. Obama’s children.

For Columbia, the firestorm is the latest episode in a string of messy, public controversies regarding Middle East politics. In 2004, pro-Palestinian professors were accused of intimidating Jewish students. Mr. Khalidi was not one of those teachers, but he was barred the next year from lecturing New York City public school teachers for having used the words “racist” and “apartheid” in discussions of Israel.

“It just seems really ironic to me that Rashid would be singled out as a figure in the trumped-up controversy,” Alan Brinkley, Columbia’s provost and a friend of Mr. Khalidi’s since 1985, said in a telephone interview Thursday. “In a field that is often politicized, he is respected by people on the right as well as the left.”

Ariel Beery, a former Columbia student leader who was involved in a pro-Israel group’s film about the 2004 controversy, said Mr. Khalidi was different from those accused of intimidation.

“In terms of his role as a professor, he was excellent,” Mr. Beery said Thursday in a telephone interview from Israel, where he lives. “He was provoking, he always allowed for different opinions, he had an open zone where people could voice their disagreement.”

Mr. Beery did criticize Mr. Khalidi’s leadership of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, saying it was “highly politicized” and “not promoting a diverse view of the Middle East.”

Mr. Khalidi, who is on sabbatical, declined to comment.

Mr. Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia, was born in Manhattan in 1948. His father, a Palestinian Muslim born in Jerusalem, worked for theUnited Nations, and his mother, a Lebanese-American Christian, was an interior decorator. He graduated from the United Nations International School and earned his bachelor’s degree from Yale in 1970 and a doctorate from Oxford University in 1974.

He taught at universities in Lebanon until the mid-’80s, and some critics accuse him of having been a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Mr. Khalidi has denied working for the group, and says he was consulted as an expert by reporters seeking to understand it.

He was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation during Middle East peace talks from 1991 to 1993. From 1987 until 2003, he was a professor at the University of Chicago, where he became friends with Mr. Obama.

At Mr. Khalidi’s farewell party in 2003, according to the Los Angeles Times article, Mr. Obama fondly recalled their many conversations, saying they provided “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases.” But Mr. Khalidi told Harper’s Magazine that a report in National Review Online that he had baby-sat for Mr. Obama’s children was nonsense.

Daniel Pipes, who directs the conservative Middle East Forum, said: “If one’s talking about American political life, he’s at the extremes, at the margins. If one’s talking about the field of Middle East studies, he’s in the middle of it. But the field itself is dominated by professors who do not permit other points of view.”

In 2005, after a New York Sun article highlighted some of Mr. Khalidi’s statements, the New York City schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, barred Mr. Khalidi from a teacher-training course. In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Khalidi said then that he “may have used the word ‘racist’ about Israeli policies,” and acknowledged saying in a speech that if the movement of Palestinians continued to be restricted, “it would develop into worse than the apartheid system.”

Addressing an accusation that he had endorsed the killing of Israeli soldiers as legitimate “resistance” to occupation, he said: “Under international law, resistance to occupation is legitimate. I didn’t endorse killing Israeli soldiers. These people will take anything out of context. Anyone who knows me knows the last thing I am is extreme. I’ve called suicide bombings a war crime. I’m a ferocious critic of Arafat.”

Rabbi J. Rolando Matalon of Congregation B’nai Jeshurun, a liberal synagogue on the Upper West Side, said he has known Mr. Khalidi for years and called the allegations “completely absurd and uncalled for and malicious.”

Referring to comments he had seen on blogs and television, he said, “In no way has he ever indicated that he favors the destruction or disappearance of Israel,” and added, “He has always been consistently in favor of dialogue and common ground.”

At Columbia, Mr. Khalidi is known as a gregarious scholar who takes a special interest in students, often meeting them for lunch near campus and hosting dinners featuring Palestinian food cooked by his wife, Mona, an assistant dean at the university. After he came under attack this week, students created a Facebook group called “I stand by Rashid Khalidi,” with 205 members by Thursday night.

“He makes history entertaining,” said Maher Awartani, 24, an Arab student leader who has taken his class. “It’s like a grandfather telling his grandson a story of what happened.”

Mr. Awartani criticized not just the McCain campaign but also the Obama campaign’s tepid response, saying, “It should have been like, yes, I know him, and I’d like to know more Middle East experts, because that’s an important thing when you’re making policies.”

Karen Zraick contributed reporting.

 

Help Students in Gaza Get a Better education

I received this email today from a contact of mine regarding an initiative by an Israeli nonprofit organization looking to help students in Gaza leave the besieged territory to get a better education.  I think it is really honorable and I hope people can help!

———–

Greetings,

I write to ask you to join us in helping hundreds of Palestinian students in the Gaza Strip reach their universities abroad. Since June 2007, Gaza’s borders have been closed, trapping 1.5 million people – including hundreds of talented young people accepted to universities abroad but prevented from reaching their studies. Last year, Israel permitted approximately 500 students and dependents to reach their studies abroad via “shuttle” services, but this year, Israel says that students will not be permitted to leave Gaza – except for a few dozen with prestigious scholarships to Western countries.

Hundreds remain trapped, in danger of losing hard-won places at universities all over the world. I refer you to Gisha’s report, “Held Back-Students Trapped in Gaza” (June 2008) and Gisha’s Power Point Presentation, “Students STILL Trapped in Gaza” (July 2008).

 

Today we are launching an online campaign aimed at recruiting international support for the right of Palestinian students from the Gaza Strip to reach their studies abroad. By clicking on the banner above you’ll reach the campaign’s mini-site: www.trappedingaza. org

The campaign is accessible in three languages - English, Arabic and Hebrew - and we hope to communicate it via e-mail, social networks, blogs and other websites.

How can you help?

1.       Join the campaign by logging on to the mini-site and asking Israel’s leaders to let students in Gaza access education;

2.       Spread word of the campaign by forwarding this message to others;

3.       Feature the banner on your website or blog.  You may choose a banner to download at this link.

4.       Click on the mini-site for further action.

Please join us in helping Gaza’s young people exercise their right to freedom of movement and to access education – and to build a better future in the region. 

Best Regards,

Sari Bashi, Executive Director

Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement

Israeli food company: We won’t sell produce grown by Arabs

I found this story in Ha’aretz today to be really disturbing.  Already Palestinian farmers are at the mercy of road blocks and travel bans.  These people are suffering enough – not just from Israeli restrictions, but from the conflict within their embattled territories that is completely out of their hands.  This is really just the icing on the cake.  So sad. – VMS  

Israeli food company: We won’t sell produce grown by Arabs By Amiram Cohen, Haaretz Correspondent http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1008424.html

Israeli produce marketing company Otzar Ha’aretz (treasure of the earth) announced on Monday that it will not market produce grown by Arab farmers, and will from now on only sell only Jewish-grown products. 

The company, which has been marketing fruits and vegetables to the ultra-Orthodox community during the shmita (sabbatical) year, announced that it will continue to operate once the year is over in effort to “support Jewish agriculture in Israel.” 

According to Jewish law, every seventh year the earth must rest and no crops can be grown. Many ultra-Orthodox Jews use foreign-grown produce during this sabbatical year in order to avoid using crops grown by Jews. Another solution, offered by Otzar Haaretz, is the Otzar Beit Din, a solution in which the Rabbinical Court appoints the farmers as its emissaries to grow produce. The produce retains its Shmitah sanctity, but can be sold by the Rabbinical Court for a fair price. Other solutions include growing produce in hothouses on beds detached from the ground, storage of produce grown in the year prior to Shmitah, produce grown in the Aravah and more. These are the main sources from which Otzar Ha’aretz supplies kosher produce during the Shmitah year.

In a statement issued Monday, Otzar Ha’aretz announced that though the shmita year will soon come to an end, the company plans to continue marketing produce to the ultra-Orthodox community as well as to members of the general public “who want high quality produce that the consumer can identify where it was grown.” 

The Director of Otzar Ha’aretz Ika Ness explained the company’s decision, saying that “Jewish agriculture needs support and we, as Zionist people, view this as our mission.” 

Marketing Director Dore Lichtenstein said that “it is every person right to know who stands behind the product they are buying, who made it and who imported it and whether it was made in Israel.”

Rachel Ray/Dunkin’ Donuts and a scarf

Once upon a time (last year) in a land not so far away for some (America), the popular American retailer Urban Outfitter sold a fashionable checkered scarf — and the buyers, they came.  From New York to Los Angeles and in many cities in between, youngsters wore this scarf as it made them… well… trendy.  That is, until someone likened their fashion statement to a certain person (Yasser Arafat) associated with terrorism. Ever so quickly, that fad was gone.

Today, Dunkin Donuts finds itself in a similar controversy… and if I may say, it’s a bit absurd.  The checkered scarf which has come to be associated with Yasser Arafat and the Fatah movement has long been used by the Arabian bedouins to keep the sand out of their eyes!  I understand people’s apprehensions, but it is really going overboard… it’s just sad.

Boston Globe
May 27, 2008

Dunkin’ Donuts yanks Rachael Ray ad

Does Dunkin’ Donuts really think its customers could mistake Rachael Ray 
for a terrorist sympathizer? The Canton-based company has abruptly 
canceled an ad in which the domestic diva wears a scarf that looks like a 
keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men.
more stories like this

Some observers, including ultra-conservative Fox News commentator Michelle 
Malkin, were so incensed by the ad that there was even talk of a Dunkin’ 
Donuts boycott.

??The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men 
that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,” Malkin yowls in 
her syndicated column.

??Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim 
terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel 
has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion 
designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.”

The company at first pooh-poohed the complaints, claiming the 
black-and-white wrap was not a keffiyeh. But the right-wing drumbeat on 
the blogosphere continued and by yesterday, Dunkin’ Donuts decided it’d be 
easier just to yank the ad.

Said the suits in a statement: ??In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is 
wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was 
selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism 
was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we are no 
longer using the commercial.’ ‘

(In case you’re wondering, the stylist who selected the offending scarf 
was not Gretta Enterprises boss Gretchen Monahan, who appears on Ray’s TV 
show as a style consultant.)

For her part, Malkin was pleased with Dunkin’s response: ??It’s refreshing 
to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans 
opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists.’ ‘

Absence of Courage

A Palestinian official argues that international donors are pledging millions to Gaza and the West Bank because they hope their generosity will compensate for their lack of political will.

Aid package: A Palestinian woman receives food handouts in Jenin

By Vivian Salama | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Dec 18, 2007

Amid international skepticism and ongoing regional tensions, 87 countries and international organizations have pledged $7.4 billion in aid to help build a Palestinian state. Monday’s Paris meeting of the donors comes on the heels of last month’s Annapolis talks, a White House effort to revitalize Israeli-Palestinian negotiations before the Bush administration leaves office. The money, which is expected to pass through various channels, including international aid organizations and the Palestinian government—that is, the government of Mahmoud Abbas and not the now-defunct Hamas-led government in Gaza—was donated in response to this week’s World Bank report, which noted that “even under the most optimistic scenarios significant aid will continue to be required” to ensure the economic stability of the West Bank and Gaza. Afif Safieh, a Palestinian diplomat who heads the Palestine Liberation Organization Mission in Washington, spoke to Vivian Salama about the likely impact of the aid package and the latest political developments in the Palestinian territories. Excerpts:
 
Vivian Salama: What is your reaction to the news of the aid package?
Afif Safieh: Since the international community did not show the political courage needed in Annapolis or in the pre-Annapolis period, which necessitated some confrontation with the Israeli territorial appetite, they are now showing financial generosity because of the absence of political audacity and political courage. They feel the collapse of the Palestinian society and the Palestinian economy will generate additional chaos to a region already plagued with it, so this is the result.
 
What is the alternative and/or the lacking initiative, in your opinion?
I would have preferred the political courage and the diplomatic courage which is needed to support the Palestinian state, but this would have meant a political confrontation with the Israeli political leadership. This is what countries in the international system want to avert. They compensate the lack of political courage with financial generosity. Now, the report made by the World Bank says that if the roadblocks and strangulation of [Palestinian] society and the economy of society continues, even with external financial help, our economy will continue to shrink and decline by 2 percent every year. We have the potential of going back to levels of growth which will be double digit if you give [us] the capability.
 
Do you see Israel as a partner?
The Israelis are until now reluctant to reduce the number of roadblocks, most of which have no security value except to plunge us into economic decline. Here I invite you to explore the expression that was originally coined by Sarah Roy, a Jewish-American writer, the daughter of survivors, a Harvard scholar, who invented the concept of de-development of Palestine—meaning that the deliberate Israeli policy [was] to plunge us into economic decline, and that’s what’s happening.
 
The Bush administration—namely [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice—has pledged its devotion to the creation of a Palestinian state before the end of its term. Are you optimistic, and is this new aid package what is needed to get this process off the ground?
I believe in the sincerity of President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I find the statement made by Secretary Rice that the creation of a Palestinian state is an American national interest [is] an important political statement which reflects the reality of the analysis by a growing body. I believe Bush when he told President Mahmoud Abbas in New York in September [that Bush] is growing increasingly impatient by the absence of progress. Since we have been unreasonably reasonable, I don’t think his impatience is addressed to my side of the argument. The question is will [Bush and Rice] vent their annoyance with the obstacle towards advance. Unfortunately so far there is no indication. Not only did the Israelis invest all their genius to lower expectations in the weeks that preceded Annapolis, but immediately after Annapolis they invested all their brilliance into torpedoing the modest results that emerged. Annapolis was supposed to retrigger a credible diplomatic avenue.
 
Does the aid package at least make you optimistic?
We are often asked, “Are you optimistic or pessimistic?” Even though I don’t feel we Palestinians have the luxury of pessimism, even though I believe that it’s only optimists who make history, I am often reminded that the definition of a pessimist is an informed optimist.
 
The World Bank has just released a detailed account on the dire economic conditions in Gaza and the West Bank. How would you describe the situation in [Hamas-controlled] Gaza?
A stain on the conscience of mankind. I read [the World Bank] report on Gaza: the inadmissible, the inconceivable is perpetrated on a daily basis. The Israelis withdrew out of Gaza yet besieged Gaza immediately, turning it into an open-air prison. They withdrew out of Gaza in order to improve their grip on the West Bank. [Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon never concealed that aim.
 
Some see this aid package as a victory for the Palestinian cause.
It shows the reservoir of goodwill and the diplomatic and universal unanimity the birth of a Palestinian state enjoys. Yet I am today more worried by the political impotence that we have witnessed throughout the decades. I believe peace is desirable, possible, doable yesterday already! As is frequently said, every possible scenario alternative and their opposite have been explored ad nauseam. I always tell Israelis that a territory that was occupied in six days can also be evacuated in six days, so that they can rest on the seventh and we can engage in the fascinating journey of economic development and reconstruction. It’s the absence of the political will that is disturbing.

Click here for the Newsweek.com link.

Palestinian Donors’ Conference – World Bank report

Today I interviewed Afif Safieh, head of the PLO Mission to Washington, DC regarding news out of Paris of a $7 billion pledge to support a viable Palestinian state.  The conference was the first step toward finding a solution to the on-going Palestinian-Israeli crisis following the conference in Annapolis last month. I will publish and then post the interview tomorrow.  In the meantime, I encourage all of you to read the World Bank Report, entitled Investing in Palestinian Economic Reform and Development. 

Can Hamas be Ignored?

by Vivian Salama

Middle East Times

Middle East author and historian Rashid Khalidi offered the following forecast for Tuesday’s peace gathering in Annapolis, “Cloudy with rain and a chance of storms.” He added, “That’s been the Middle East forecast for decades.”

The media has been criticized for its relentless skepticism of the “get together” – as one White House official described it – taking place in Maryland this week. For many, this multilateral gathering of more than two dozen delegations to discuss the Palestinian-Israeli issue is merely history repeating itself. In 2000, just as President Clinton was preparing to leave office, he invited the then-embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and his beleaguered Palestinian counterpart Yasser Arafat together at Camp David to negotiate a final settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Seven years later, a politically besieged President George W. Bush has invited Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas – both of whom are fighting to stay for political survival – to make long overdue concessions and revitalize final status talks. Photo-ops and cliché catch phrases like “Road Map to Peace” will not undo the decades of damage this conflict has inflicted upon both sides. Israel’s Prime Minster Olmert has lost considerable support in Israel following his futile military campaign against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. President Abbas comes to the table representing a government that was not democratically elected by the majority of Palestinians, and so by attending the meeting – all the while further alienating Hamas which essentially rules over Gaza – he may be doing himself more harm than good.

Meanwhile, since September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has been preoccupied with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the greater War on Terrorism, all the while neglecting this conflict which continues to be a source, if not a consistent grievance for much of the Middle East and the Muslim world. The War on Terrorism ultimately amounts to a war of ideas. To win the war of ideas, the U.S. must take genuine steps toward solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. That’s where Annapolis comes in.

British-Arab historian Albert Habib Hourani wrote shortly into the Suez Crisis of 1956 that “[He] who rules the Near East rules the world; and he who has interest in the world is bound to concern itself with the Near East.” With just over one year left on the clock, the administration, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has put considerable time and energy in recent months into assuring both sides that it is committed to finding a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. How the Bush administration intends to help foster the creation of a Palestinian state when neither the United States nor Israel recognize Hamas – elected democratically by the Palestinian people in January 2006 – has yet to be determined.

Much of the talk leading up to this meeting has revolved around the idea of concessions. Such a compromise would include full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank with the exception of a few areas amounting to minor border tweaks. Control of the city of Jerusalem would be shared along ethnic lines with commitments from both sides to strive for peaceful coexistence.

A positive aspect to staging the Annapolis gathering at this particular time is that the stakes are high for all the major players involved. The Bush administration, desperate to establish any kind of credibility in the region, knows that the road to fixing the diplomatic disaster created in Iraq runs through Jerusalem. Also, many Israelis, tired of the same old tug-of-war that has dictated the conflict, are pressing for the old “land for peace” notion that has popped up repeatedly in various peace processes involving Israel. Abbas and his Fatah party understand that a failure to achieve a final settlement for the majority of Palestinians will undermine the credibility he is struggling to retain in the face of Hamas. More poignant is that the United States and Israel understand this too.

Ultimately it is not what comes out of the meeting in Annapolis that will be telling, but rather, what is to follow. If the meeting can jump start a series of talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then hope is not lost. However, it is unrealistic to think that anything will be accomplished so long as the parties involved continue to isolate Hamas.

Gaza Crisis; Mubarak-Olmert Meeting; Annapolis At Last

This is a rather moving interactive feature by Steven Erlanger, the New York Times correspondent in Israel, on the devastating economic crisis in Gaza.  I recommend it if you have a few minutes:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/18/weekinreview/20771118_GAZA_FEATURE.html

I did a story several years ago on the lack of foreign investment in Gaza.  Click here to read it. Also, just as my skepticism took on a new form, the invitations have been sent out and a date set for the Annapolis (Maryland) Palestinian-Israeli summit.  (Alas, I did not receive an invitation – it must be lost in the mail.  To find out who did, click here)  Ehud Olmert was in Egypt with President Hosni Mubarak and the two men (both of whose countries are the first and second highest recipients of US dollars, respectively) gave the thumbs-up to the conference. 

Here’s the story from the New  York Times:

Wanted: Participants for Mideast Talks

By HELENE COOPER and ISABEL KERSHNER

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 — The Bush administration finally acknowledged publicly on Tuesday that it had issued formal invitations to 40 countries and organizations that it hopes will attend a heavily anticipated Middle East peace conference scheduled for next week in Annapolis, Md. But the long, drawn-out route that State Department officials followed before making the acknowledgment reflected the high-stakes gamble that the administration is taking, as well as the unsettled nature of the outcome. Even late Tuesday afternoon, administration officials were still in negotiations with their Arab counterparts over whether Saudi Arabia and Syria would send their foreign ministers to the conference, or make do with lower-level envoys.

President Bush telephoned King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to enlist his support for the conference, and in particular to try to get an agreement from him that the Saud family would be represented at the conference by Prince Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, administration officials said.

The presence of Prince Saud is seen as critical to assure a certain level of Arab commitment to the peace process. But the Saudi royal family has been unwilling to give the Annapolis conference a high-level endorsement without assurances that the negotiations will be substantive, with real concessions from Israel, including a freeze on settlements that would lead to Israeli withdrawal from land that it seized in 1967.

Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, would say only that Mr. Bush and King Abdullah had “shared their views of the process that is under way between the Israelis, Palestinians and the international community.”

C. David Welch, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said in a news conference on Tuesday evening that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sent an invitation to both Prince Saud and the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem. Mr. Welch said the decision to attend was up to the individual countries, but added, “I’m hopeful and expectant of a positive response.”

An Arab official with knowledge of the negotiations said it was likely that Prince Saud would attend the Annapolis conference. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, citing diplomatic protocol.

Mr. Welch said “we won’t turn off the microphone” if Mr. Moallem, who rarely interacts with administration officials because of administration policy toward Syria, attends the conference and wishes to speak there. Israeli officials had asked that Syria be invited, and several State Department officials have said privately that it would be a mistake to exclude Syria from the meeting.

If Saudi officials sit down with the Israelis, it will be a rare event at public Israeli-Palestinian talks. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the Saudi ambassador to the United States, attended a peace conference in Madrid in the fall of 1991, but as an observer, not a formal participant.

Saudi Arabia does not recognize Israel, although Saudi officials have also urged the Bush administration to push hard to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli peace issue. There have been some unconfirmed reports of other contacts between Israeli and Saudi officials, including some earlier this year.

The conference, which will begin with a preliminary meeting in Washington on Nov. 26 and move to Annapolis on Nov. 27, is supposed to initiate final-status peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians to settle the long-running, seemingly intractable issues that have bedeviled peace negotiators since 1979.

“This is the holy grail of diplomacy,” a senior administration official said. “We’re trying to rally the Arab world for support of this process, and they are master fence-sitters.”

Mr. Bush is expected to begin the Annapolis conference with a substantive speech, and part of the American effort to woo Arab leaders includes assurances to them that he will lay out an ambitious agenda that will pin all sides to firm negotiations on the status of Jerusalem, the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the contours of a Palestinian state.

“This is the point where the rubber meets the road,” said Martin Indyk, the former United States ambassador to Israel. “The United States really wants for Arab states to turn up, to bless the process.”

Until Tuesday evening, State Department officials would not officially confirm even the date of the conference.

“My hope and desire is that we can talk to you, in the not-too-distant future, about not only the list of invitees, but the date as well as the agenda for the Annapolis conference,” Sean D. McCormack, the department spokesman, said at a briefing early in the day, in language that was opaque even by diplomatic standards. “I anticipate there’s going to be a day that all the participants are going to be at Annapolis, and there are probably going to be events the day before and the day after.”

Appearing with the Israeli prime minister in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday gave his full endorsement to the scheduled gathering, and raised hopes among Israeli officials of wider Arab participation at the meeting.

“Obviously we would hope that Egypt’s position will be representative of a larger Arab position,” said Mark Regev, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman.

At a joint news conference at Sharm el Sheik, an Egyptian Red Sea resort, both leaders billed the Annapolis meeting as a springboard for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations toward a final settlement of the conflict.

Israeli officials described Tuesday’s summit meeting as “covering bases” ahead of a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo on Thursday. Israel sees Arab support for the budding Israel-Palestinian peace process as crucial, to give added legitimacy to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Isabel Kershner from Sharm el Sheik, Egypt.