by Daniel Yawitz
As I read about the Annapolis conference last week, I couldn’t help but notice that every headline I saw contained some variation on “Mid-East peace talks.” But the Annapolis conference was all about developing peace between Israel and Palestine. Yes, these countries are in the Middle East, and yes peace in Israel would mean peace in that part of the Middle East, but since when did the Levant become the defining region? In a reading from a few weeks ago, Gelvin mentioned that much of the US’s policy during the Cold War was ensuring that Israel remained at peace with its neighbors, in order to ensure security for the rest of the region. This is why Israel ended up with the enormously advanced military it has. Therefore it would seem natural that, in the US, peace Israel and Palestine would represent peace in the region at large. This would also draw attention away from that other somewhat important conflict in the Middle East in which the US had a hand.
There is an article on Haaretz.com that talks about why such conflicts as in Iraq and Lebanon (the “elephants in the room”) were not even given discussion at Annapolis last week.
1 Comment
December 8, 2007 at 10:55 am
I’m glad you pointed out this issue in the coverage of Annapolis. One of the challenges to peace in the Middle East (and just understanding the Middle East) is understanding that so many issues are interconnected. You need to look at many issues at the same time. In addition to the issue of Lebanon and Iraq, you also need to think about Syria’s demand that the Golan Heights be returned and the influence of Iran on the region.