Dear editor, After reading the numerous articles and commentaries you published about the Annapolis conference, I can only say that I'm surprised with the optimism with which the world is viewing the "peace conference. For me, however, it is as useless as the endless, superficial diplomatic meetings. Like many of your commentators have noted in the past month, it's important to get all parties on the negotiating table. And this naturally falls under common sense - something that prominent diplomats and world leaders obviously lack - because you can't really negotiate time-changing accords without talking to all people involved. The idea behind negotiation is to bring people with different ideologies and conflicting interests a bit closer. Make them realize that reaching common ground is not that far fetched.Our 'enlightened' world leaders don't seem to agree. Out of rejection to the Hamas policies and ideologies, the US - with the agreement of other key participants - decided not to invite the organization. Well, the whole purpose is to get parties with conflicting opinions to agree on something. And while excluding Hamas could seem ideal to the pretentious 'goodie goodie' leaders, it isn't really realistic. Whether the world agrees with Hamas or not, this won't change the fact that it controls Gaza and influences a considerable percentage of the West Bank. Any agreement reached in Annapolis, which is also far fetched, wouldn't translate into anything applicable in reality without Hamas' support. The group and its supporters, inside and outside Palestine, won't miraculously disappear once the conference participants reach an agreement in the confines of Annapolis, Merryland. This is why I believe that the Annapolis conference, otherwise known as 'what's the point,' doesn't have a chance nor a purpose - albeit some last minute public relations' work to save the image of George Bush before leaving office. Right now, it seems that he will only be remembered for starting the Iraq War.
