The Munich Security Conference added little to prospects of peace in the Middle East, reports Dina Ezzat from Munich The handshake between former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Torki Al-Faisal and Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Aylon on the second day of the 44th Munich Security Conference (MSC) might have been the highlight of the event. Challenging the former Saudi official to a handshake in the wake of a verbal attack on the role of Riyadh vis-à-vis the Palestinian issue, Aylon got his way. After having been rebuffed by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu for having mistreated Ankara's ambassador in Tel Aviv, the Israeli official managed to secure for his country an unprecedented gesture of recognition from a direct relative of the Saudi monarch. The handshake was applauded by participating American figures who had been otherwise busy threatening Iran with harsher economic sanctions and/or military attacks, notably US Senator Joseph Lieberman, hardliner Republican John McCain and former US secretary of state Madeline Albright. The handshake was smugly welcomed by Aylon himself who arrogantly muttered, "There is hope; there is hope." However, it was overlooked by the Turkish foreign minister, the only official in the MSC to firmly challenge Israel on its treatment of the Palestinians under occupation, especially in Gaza. The contradictory postures of the representatives of Riyadh -- that still maintains a political and economic boycott on Israel -- and of Ankara -- that conducts joint military exercises with the Israeli occupation army -- constituted the only light shed on the status of Israel among its regional neighbours. Little else addressed the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or Israeli violations of international law and international humanitarian law, as recorded in the Richard Goldstone report currently being examined by the UN General Assembly. Moreover, talk on Middle East peacemaking was constrained to rhetoric. Aylon told his MSC audience that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was coming around to the idea of "proximity" talks conducted by US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell. The Israeli deputy foreign minister, however, stopped short of indicating where such talks should go or lead to. "There is a clear indication that the Israeli government is willing to go to negotiations, but there is no indication whatsoever that they want to continue these talks to take them to the two-state solution," commented a European source on condition of anonymity. According to this source, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is coming under "no serious pressure" from the Obama administration to earnestly engage in peace efforts. "And if Obama is not doing it, there is no way that Europe can do it," she added. In the analysis of this and other European and American diplomats, what counts now is to start talks under the rubric of the two-state solution. According to a statement by US National Security Advisor James Jones to the MSC, the premise of the two-state solution is that Israel is "a Jewish state". Equally under-discussed -- in open session or in closed-door session -- are Israeli threats of military action against neighbouring targets. American and European participants in the MSC seemed to exclude any possibility of an Israeli attack on Iranian targets. One European parliamentarian who asked for his name to be withheld said plainly: "Israel cannot attack Iran unless it goes nuclear and this will change the Middle East forever." As for Hamas and Hizbullah, Middle East and European MSC sources agreed that there was no assurance against Israeli attacks. The general feel in Munich was "if it happens, it happens." Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan -- and Gulf security -- seemed to most matter for MSC participants when it came to "security" in the Middle East. Iran was offered a tough message from representatives of key world capitals. Russian Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Iran should come to a deal soon enough with the 5+1 group (UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany) but acknowledged that any deal would require international attention to regional strategic facts -- an indirect reference to Israeli possession of nuclear weapons. For his part, Lieberman was not shy of speaking about military plans being tailored in Washington for possible attacks against Iranian nuclear targets. Although he added, "nobody wants to go there," he refused to exclude the military option against Iran. Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Manouchehr Mottaki was unruffled. Iran, he told a press conference marked by a heavy attendance of press and officials alike, is considering an agreement in principle on the exchange of low enriched uranium and nuclear fuel. An agreement, Mottaki stated, is pending the finalisation of issues he discussed with senior international and regional counterparts, including Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Yukiya Amano and the foreign minister of Turkey. Squabbles over Iran's nuclear programme did not mean that representatives of Tehran were excluded from talks on the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "cooperation" of Tehran on these two fronts was solicited, as was that of both Ankara and Riyadh. Judging by Western, Russian and Turkish accounts, Tehran offered some indications that it could cooperate, but did not fully commit itself. MSC participating Afghani President Hamid Karzai predicted that his country could take partial hold of security responsibility from international forces in three years, with full control in five years. Karzai, however, hastened to add that this would not mean that international intervention in Afghanistan, as part of the "war on terror", would end by then. McCain predicted a tough 2010 for international forces in Afghanistan with the adoption of a military surge strategy. UK Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth did not disagree. The call of Karzai for international forces to "stop the war in the Afghani villages" and pursue Al-Qaeda operatives where they really are -- in remote pockets and on the borders with Pakistan -- was not heeded by NATO and Western participants. Moreover, Karzai's call for a wide reconciliation process to embrace moderate Taliban figures was boldly rebuffed by McCain who insisted that there would be no negotiations with the Taliban because to do otherwise would indicate that "the Jihadist could win the US" either in Afghanistan or elsewhere. For MSC participants, especially with NATO affiliation, containing the Taliban in Afghanistan is crucial for the stability of neighbouring Pakistan, that one NATO source qualified as a "nightmare". "Pakistan is basically a failing state with nuclear capabilities, and if the extremists take over we will face serious, even nightmarish troubles," he said.
