While preparations for an ME peace conference are in full swing, the spectre of a new war looms, reads Doaa El-Bey At a time when the parties concerned are preparing for a peace conference on the Middle East in Annapolis in the US before the end of the year, many commentators cast doubt the conference would bring any peace to the region. Meanwhile, and in opposite directions, the Turkish parliament approved the deployment of some 100,000 Turkish troops along its border with Iraq, a move that could lead to a new confrontation in the region. Officials as well as political commentators expressed pessimism when discussing the prospects of the Annapolis peace conference. Gamil Mattar wrote that the so-called meeting or conference has come to cover up the deliberate and notorious deficiency of the present US administration in dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict fairly. Given the weak situation the US administration is in at present, Mattar added in the London-based daily Al-Hayat that it started seeking Arab governments or parties to hold responsible for its failure to bring a just and comprehensive peace, or any kind of peace, throughout its eight years at the helm. Thus, if US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice succeeded in gathering a number of Arab sates for the conference, the US would manage to emerge from the summit with a statement that would put all the blame on the Arabs. "In Annapolis, nobody would say that Israel killed or imprisoned Palestinians or impeded peace. What will be said is that the Arabs failed to do what was expected of them, like saving the Palestinian economy and uprooting Hamas and Hizbullah," Mattar wrote. Maamoun Fendi suggested that the slogan of the peace conference should be "No to peace". The hatred between the Arabs and Israelis is so deeply rooted that reaching peace is very difficult. But the solution as Fendi wrote in the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat is to accept reality and focus on settling the conflict in a legal way. He questioned the strategic benefit of focussing only on the Palestinian-Israeli track. If former US president Bill Clinton had resolved the Palestinian-Israeli issue, it would have contributed to stability in the Middle East. But now after all the changes that took place in the region since Bush has come to power, resolving the Palestinian issue on its own will not help. Thus, establishing a Palestinian state would not stabilise the region unless it came as part of a package that would include a complete Arab-Israeli settlement. "The objective of the slogan 'no to peace, yes to settlement' is to make all the parties focus on the bigger strategic issues that aim to stabilise the region in the long-run rather than on details that are unimportant -- that is, to focus on the more difficult job of settling the conflict rather than on the rosy dreams of peace," he added. The Annapolis meeting is a mere attempt by Washington and other parties to deepen Palestinian divisions and impede any serious attempt to bridge it according to Ali Garadat. If that is not the case, Garadat questioned how one could explain things like the US showing a sudden interest in resolving the Palestinian issue after it was marginalised for years; Israel suddenly seeing the Palestinians as a partner for peace and dividing them to 'moderates' and 'extremists'; Israel still refusing to accept a timetable for withdrawal; and its insistence on carrying out all the killings and imprisonment of the Palestinians in Gaza as well as in the West Bank. All these things indicate that the Annapolis meeting would be a mere formality void of any content. "The Palestinian parties are supposed to act in a responsible way and exert every effort to bridge differences so that the Annapolis 'farce' will not turn into a 'catastrophe' that further deepens inter-Palestinian division and crisis," Garadat wrote in the independent political Palestinian daily Al-Ayam. Hassan Al-Barari questioned whether the Annapolis meeting would succeed in reaching a final settlement of the Palestinian issue or simply claim that it is launching a new peace process. In the Jordanian political independent daily Al-Ghad, Al-Barari examined the position of the involved parties. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wants a detailed agreement for a two-state solution that he can include in his political programme for the new legislative elections. That agreement, together with a successful peace dynamic in the West Bank, would force Hamas to join the elections -- which Al-Barari claims the group will not win -- or face marginalisation as most of the Palestinians favour the two-state solution. Meanwhile, the division within Ehud Olmert's government will stop him from giving any such concessions to the Palestinians. Given the conflicting stand of both sides, a resolution to the conflict is linked to Rice's ability to reach a compromise that would not cross the red lines drawn by the two sides. But as the US administration is divided among itself and is more interested in the Iraq issue, Al-Barari reached the conclusion that Rice will only launch a new peace process without being able to make any side sign a detailed agreement. "If the criterion for the success of the Annapolis conference is reaching a final peace agreement, then the conference will fail. But if it is launching a new peace process then there is a chance for it to succeed," he wrote. While the peace conference does not stand a good chance of bringing peace, the deployment of Turkish troops on the Iraqi border raised the alarm for a possible confrontation. Amal Al-Sharqi wrote that there were many factors that made Turkish troops deploy other than the movement of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) -- the changes that the US occupation made in the balance of power in Iraq in favour of the Iraqi Kurds; the recent Kurdish call for separation from Iraq and the non- committal resolution taken by the US congress to divide Iraq. "It is a crisis that could have a happy ending if the Iraqi Kurdish leaders remember that they get their power from a powerful Iraqi state and that their attempt to weaken Iraq would weaken them and leave them exposed to the enemies that are waiting to pounce from across the border," Al-Sharqi wrote in the Jordanian independent daily Al-Arab Al-Yom . Ahmed Youssef Ahmed wrote that the present crisis should persuade the Iraqi Kurds that the option of clinging to a united Iraq built on equality of rights between the different sects is the best option for them and that their support for the US occupation did not protect them from the prospects of a Turkish military confrontation. "It is better for the Kurds, the Iraqi government and all the Arabs to focus all their efforts in liberating Iraq and rebuilding it so that it can become the safe shelter for all its citizens, Arabs and Kurds," he concluded in the United Arab Emirates daily Al-Ittihad.
