Why is it when an Israeli leader is on his way out, has little or no political support he then starts talking "peace"?
People seem to have forgotten this new so called "man of peace" was the guy who carried out terror bombing in Southern Lebanon and even a UN bases resulting in the movemnt of almost a 3rd of the entire country?

Al - your question regarding the "illegal" occupation of the West Bank is well made - so why don't the Israelis take all the land make a single democratic state and give the indiginous Palestinians equal rights with the mainly immigrant Jews? The problem is political Zionism cannot and will not accept this.

So either Israel should comply in full with UN resolutions and go back to 1967 boundries and give the Palestinians the right of return - or they should take all the land and all Jew Moslem and Christian should live in equality - anyhting else is worse than the darkest days of apartied.

So which one will it be Al????

Michael J, Leicester, UK

Is this the same "Israeli and Palestinian leaders appeared close to a breakthrough..." that's been going on for, what is it, fifty years?

Ron, Cape Town, South Africa

Alex, you will know that at Camp David Barak offered little more than quasi-independence for a Palestinian ‘state’ with Israel keeping some control of borders. The Taba talks were more fruitful but the crux was sovereignty of Jerusalem. Arafat could not agree to Clinton’s quirky solution (some say trap) of giving some sovereignty of the Haram/Al Aqsa compound to the Palestinians, and giving Israelis sovereignty of the Western Wall & lower portion of the Haram – as this effectively ceded sovereignty to foundations of the Al Aqsa Mosque. Would Israelis accept ceding sovereignty of the earth below the Western Wall to Palestinians?
The crux of the matter here is NOT borders, as there will be land exchange, the crux is NOT the right of return for refugees, as Palestinians have already agreed to a 'just ' solution, The crux is whether Israel will actually accept a viable Palestinian state and not isolated Bantustans, and whether it will share sovereignty of Jerusalem with Palestinians.

W Javed, London, UK

j chuckmans comments are all factually correct however he forgot to add one thing - what israel want, it gets. the stranglehold it had on the US Congress (mainly through various lobby groups - notably AIPAC) ensures a majority of its policies are endorsed by the US government, there is NO criticism by Congress of any Israeli action, and that diplomatic and financial aid flow generously to this small middle east state. Senators and House Reps are terrified by these groups all of which brag they 'could have 75 signatures from US senators on a cocktail napkin in an hour'. America invaded Iraq not for oil but because Israel wanted it to - Sadaam was not a threat at all to the US, only to Israel. The Israeli view is unquestionably one-sided. Their tactics are growing more obvious - you do not support Israel, we will financially support your adversary. Alternatively we will label you an Anti-Semite - reference Jimmy Carter.
The world is growing tired of this - and more aware.

James Colbern, London, UK

The 2000 Peace Accords would have been succesful if the more than generous offer by the Israeli Government was accepted by the Palestinian Authority, lead then by Yasser Araft.
I think America, whilst having good intentions, need to stop trying to force peace, and let the Israelis and the Arabs, the executors of 60 years of bloodshed, resolve their issues and form their own peace. The attempt by the US is another play by the "superpower" to look superior, when they should have no input in this peace solution, especially due to their military support of Israel.
Israel do not want to deal with extremists instable governments, because they know that once power shifts, this 'peace agreement' will be shredded, so that's why the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) has never been invited to these peace conferences, so they sent a Palestinian authority, and thats why Hamas and Hezbollah, legitimate 'political' parties have not been invited either.

Nick, Melbourne, Australia

As much as I am confident both Olmert and Abass have met with good intentions, the lack of support for either side back home is not going to enhance any 'peace plan' which may be agreed.

The exclusion and refusal of Hamas to attend this summit is indicative of the on-going situation and their 'my way or the high way' approach to the state of Israel. Both Olmert and Abass are willing to make concessions for peace but whilst Hamas maintain the majority vote and refuse to compromise and recognise the need for peace in the region there can be no state of Palestine along side Israel and therefore no Palestinian state at all. Israel's security is non-negotiable.

This is likely to also be an attempt to marginalise Hamas, for Abass to return to the region with a plan for peace as opposed to war. Of course it is up to those living in the WB which they chose, as for those in Gaza....well their fate is Hamas and therefore, war.

Completely agree with Tariq Shah.

Holly Shaw, Wimbledon, London

I find it very hard to believe these Annapolis talks would eventually lead somewhere, given the present status quo. Both parts have huge interests to defend and would have even greater risks to run.
Decades of terror, sufferance and bloodshed have been poisoning people’s daily lives: almost everybody in Israel and Palestine lost a relative or a friend, or knows someone who did.
These two peoples deeply hate each other, which produces the worst enemy of ant attempt to peace and reconciliation.
Personal commitment by Mr Olmert and Mr Abbas to find a reasonable compromise deserves appreciation and support, nonetheless I have the terrible sensation that what many people want in the Middle East is not peace, but revenge.

Marco, Tivoli, Italy

waine ,your sick mentality is what helps to preclude a genuine peace between two desperate people -why not give encouragement?instead of these ugly comments -i am sure you dont even know a *zionist* or what the word means -just a desire of some of the jewish people to live free and in peace with its neighbours in the holy land . this world needs sensible comment like tariq shah made not your negative remarks ,try to wish them all well and maybe we will all see a just and peaceful world

phil, manchester, england

Waine (UK) & Urban (UK) your anti US bias is showing.What is it about the US/Bush that so upsets so many Brits that they lose their objectivity and critical skills and are automatically against whatever the US is for?

To be somewhat upset is understandable; to become irrational and support dangerous positions is unforegivable.

abritincanada, Calgary,

Why do you need a so called peace plan when you have UN resolutions outstanding that israel ignores?

Israel should first comply with UN resolutions and then thre should be a just peace plan.

Michael Jabir, Leicester, UK

If Hamas are not achknowledging these peace talks and results from them, how will the fighting stop.. someone please explain.??

Stuart, Southampton, UK

Unfortunately one has to agree with kevin of Ningbo , China.
Successive US Administrations have carried out this charade and play acting the good guys every few years.
The result has been to con the Arabs and the Palestinians into a false sense of hope, whilst successive wars have effectively razed Arab lands. The aim or effect has been to create an economic desert around Israel.

K Urban, London, UK

Mr Chuckman, your ignorance is astounding. Check out your facts properly before you publicly air them...

M Wilson, Cambridge, UK

Annapolis is already a dead man walking.
First, it has a goal of leading to talks. Does anyone believe talks alone can do anything?
We've had talks, off and on, for fifty years. 'Peace process' with no peace, much like an 'educational process' with no education.
Second, Bush has already been told not to pressure Olmert at this time.
The fact is no change worth talking about will happen without American pressure on Israel. Israel initiates nothing in these matters, and hasn't done so for half a century.
Third, a major party is not even included. Imagine a peace conference without one of the warring parties?
Ridiculous.
No matter what you think of Hamas, they represent a large part of the population, and they were elected in elections far cleaner than those that put Bush into office.
Israel's very refusal ever to even talk to Hamas tells you something very important.
Hamas for years in the past was secretly subsidized by Israel's secret services - who would hardly support anyone who was a genuine threat - hoping it would eventually form a bloody division with Arafat.
That's just what has happened, and Israel's leaders I am sure are pleased behind the scenes with the state of affairs. They get to treat an elected government as a pariah and do all kinds of high-handed actions such as holding back Palestinian funds with limited criticism.
Why should they change?
The real point of all Israel's policies for five decades has been to make the Palestinians so miserable, they'll go away.
Israel has no incentive, being subsidized to the tune of 500 dollars per citizen per year by America, to change. Only American pressure would do anything.
Of course, a fourth reason is that America is in an election cycle, and no candidate of either party can afford to be seen being tough on Israel.
Hopeless, absolutely hopeless.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO, Canada

The americans are always would like to hold some kinds of gathering to prove the fact that they care about the world.Let's just wait and see who is gonna be the winner and who is gonna be the loser!

kevin, Ningbo , China

"Ehud Olmert, President Bush and Mahmoud Abbas in a symbolic three-way handshake at Annapolis today"

One is alone, two's a company and three's a crowd!

Mr Bush has to leave them alone, for there to be any peace.
He should especially stop all military aid to Israel.

Mohammed, London, UK

Does America really care about peace in Middle East? I don't think so, they care nothing but oil only.

Bee Nee, Hong Kong,

Where's the deadly Blair in all this? Just taking the fee?

pfffill, Shanghai, China

Waine, from Merseyside - firstly, I'm pretty sure White House is two words, but then I'm also pretty sure 'waine' is Wayne, so perahaps I'm wrong.

President Bush, just as an ally and a benefactor can, has the power to influence Israeli policy, to a point, but as the failed 2000 Camp David summit showed, even when that influence is used to encourage the maximum of concessions (the offer of joint control of Jerusalem, 100% of the West Bank and Gaza, no settlements, no wall - a viable Palestinian state, essentially) it still takes a Palestinian leader with a genuine desire to make peace to accept them. Arafat couldn't (the gravest mistake in his people's history), he knew Hamas would have his head if he did, let's see if Olmert is corageous enough to make the same offer, and then see if Abbas is a) willing and b) able to take him up on it. He will have some tricky 'conversations' at home if he does, and that is the real obstacle.

Alex , London,

The document, which the parties had previously failed to agree, could trigger within days the first formal peace talks between two sides for seven years.
Hmmmmm... I read this somewhere before....
Actually, the bible talks about the signing of a peace accord which lasts 7 years...
I know , I know ... I can hear the remarks now... You fundies are all wrong... Lets see what happens 3.5 years from the date of that signing... I read that all HELL breaks loose. Anyway just some FYI.

jason littlejohn, Lawrence, USA/Kansas

Why on earth do Israelis tolerate a prime minister who publically states that he is prepared to take great risks with his country? People who take great risks are called stupid, reckless and irresponsible. They used to be, anyway. Maybe stupid is the new smart. But defeat and failure is not the new success - just ask the Americans about Iraq.

Christopher Holand, Canberra, Austria

I'm not even going to throw in what I think about all this because that would take too long.

I simply want to remark that all of you who are leaving negative and pessimistic comments about this (no matter what side of the argument you are on) are showing that you have been so blinded by hatred that not even a genuine attempt at peace can make you change your ways.

These talks will be very difficult, but let us all hope for the best.

Yon, Boston, MA / USA

Regrettably, Hamas need to brought on board. Don't laugh folks but maybe Tony Blair can bring them to the negotiating table - the man is a consummate politician and highly persuasive. He managed to pull the rabbit out of the hat in Ireland (after a good start from John Major) - perhaps he can do it again.

Ian Burgess, Bristol,

Both the Palestinians and Hizbala have been using the lands already given them to send a non-stop stream of missiles and shells -- sometimes a trickle, sometimes a barrage -- into Israel.

It is a mystery to me why people think something else will occur if Israel gives even more lands to the arabs.

This is obviously what is going to happen.

Maybe Bush&co actually WANT missiles to rain down on the center of Israel, like on Tel Aviv and Jewish Jerusalem...?

Avi, Rehovot, israel

Nice theory, Waine from Mersyside. Of course the Zionists are in charge of the Whitehouse, they also control world financial markets, start all wars, poison Christian wells and killed Christ.

Do us all a favour Waine; stop using The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as your textbook on Middle East affairs, ok.

Jeremy, Jerusalem, Israel

the uncondetional support to Isreal by USA, has in the past & still in the present disqualfay it of been pace brooker
the only hope if EEC take the leading role, may be 50 yrars from now

Dr Sam Young, London,

Ah, Mr Guelkan, you must realise that Western democracy is a find thing - as long as overseas voters elect governments favourable to powerful Western nations!

Tony Jones, Grantham, Lincs

We have been witness to serious conflagration between Isrealites and Arabs for a very long time now. It is a turning point in their history that the two leaders are meeting in the U.S. with a view to finding a solution to their mutual conflicts. I am absolutely confident that they will sincerely try to meet each other and resolve their differences on the happening of which the world will be better off with one less conflict. Let us all pray to the Almighty God to help all concerned including the Hamas or every other group to realise the absolute necessity to return to PEACE.

Sanjeevi, Chennai, India

Let's hope these two 'spoiled children' nations can leave behind the selfishness and stupidity.
Micromanagement and a worms-eye view of the world have created nothing but profoundly STUPID problems for the rest of the world for generations.
Have they noticed the sheer LACK OF IMAGINATION in trying to solve their issues? What's missing here is a tangible set of practical IDEA'S that actually solve The Problem.
Truly disgusting.

K. Bennett, Kansas City, USA

Tell me what is the joke about the camels and the big rooms. I think the world has got kind of wired up after the King of Saudi went to UK. Well, he was invited, was he not? I doubt if any one gatecrashes into some one's land without the invitation card. The rebuke that was shown to the King in UK showed me not anything more of English snobbery but more. Chaves scoffs at the West. He has told the West," Attack Iran the oil that is now at 99 goes up 200. The meeting of the Arabs together is long due to show the solidarity the faith all have in oneness. I see nothing to laugh about. Honest. Let us take this as a step of the solidifying the Arabs as one. They need this dose after Saddam has gone. This in turn will help Iraq too. At least the soldiers who are eating the free meals will have to go back to the lands where the dollar is at its lowest and CIP (Consumers Price Index) low
This column is as a think tank for many. I understand the misuse of the few narrow heads here too.
Something strange about this header is crazy. It is either not complete or left for us to understand
The Arabs are in money making business. That is not wrong. At least it is better then Enron, CITI, Northern Rock that gave loans and is under heavy pressure to give up, rather it is breathing its last.
The Arabs are in unity at last
The Arabs Are In march to see that the poor that were left out by the Graet8, Paris Club, UN, the many NGOs the puppets of USA, the globalizations failure to contain the emission and blame others.
The Arabs Are In solidarity to show the world that dollar is not a good currency.

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania East Africa

Al, 1948 is the key year, when the British left Palestine, and the state of Israel was then formed by the Jewish leaders. Jewish "guerrilla" fighters (or "terrorists" depending what side you're on), fought the British before 1948, and when the British army left, they forced many Palestinians out of their homes.

These Palestinians and their descendants were not given any compensation for the loss of their homes, which is why they are angry, and things have been bad ever since.

Jo, London, UK

After the WWII Russia occupied German East Prussia Poland, occupied Gdansk and a third of Germany, Ukraine occupied Polish Lwov, Belorus occupied Polish Minsk, Lithuania occupied Polish Wilno, and all removed the existing populations. The world kept quiet. After the 6 Day War, Israel occupied large tracts of land; all of which, except part of the west bank was returned - there is uproar about the" illegal" occupation of what is left. There seems to be one rule for some and another rule for others. can anyone explain?

Al, Marlow, UK

After WWII Russia occupied East Prussia, Poland took Gdansk, and a third of Germany, Ukraine took Polish Lwow, Belorus took Polish Minsk, Lithuania took Polish Wilno. All the inhhabitants of those countries were forcibly "resettled". Ther has been no outcry so far After the 1967 war Israel occupied large tracts of land - all now returned except for some West Bank and bits of Jerusalem. Outcry all round. Don't understand this.

Perhaps someone could explain?

Al, Marlow, UK

Lives are being lost in the Holy Lands. To hell with Palestine and Israel, they've had 60 years to resolve this and are unlikely to ever sort it out. It just makes depressing reading to hear about the poor Palestinians and the so called Israelis under siege all the time, decade after decade.
We need a change of formula and Abu Zaki has a point. Bring in the Jordanians and hand them the West Bank. The West Bank can have general autonomy to give them better control over their land. Likewise, Gaza should be ceded to Egypt with autonomy. Both are Arab countries and are likely to give the citizens better rights than those given by Israel to the arabs.

Abid, Shipley, UK

The Palastinians are un-governable. Even by theyr'e own leaders. Any agreements they make will be broken. The reality is that Fatah are corrupt and inept, Hamas are radical Iranian puppets whilst most of the other groups such as Islamic Jihad are the mad dogs of Middle Eastern politics - and that's saying something.

In truth, I suspect that the Palistinians of the West Bank would be better off ruled from Amman whilst those poor souls in Gaza, trapped between a rock (Israel) and a hard place (Hamas), would be better off under Egyptian control. Interestingly, I have never heard of any Arab's who actually live in Israel campaigning to live under Palistinian control and who can blame them. After all, who would?

Abu Zaki, Kuwait City, Kuwait

We’ve been through this charade before.
No deal is likely because the Americans have as usual left it too late in the final year of a President’s last term in office.

The US is unfortunately an impotent giant who can do absolutely nothing to force Israel but can always lob the odd bomb at the Arabs.

K Urban, London, UK

The reason Hamass are not at the table is that they demand outright war with Israel, which would be a final devastation for the Arabs of Palestine. It's laughable to talk about democracy in Palestine as though it was Switzerland. There has already been a two-state solution - a Jewish state and an Arab state - since 1948. The Jewish state hit the ground running; the Arab state stalled in denial and reproach. Arab Palestine is just a failed state, now in civil war. Israel is a beleagured modern democracy under siege, trying (however crudely) to keep the peace. The west has a historical duty to support Israel.

Tom, London,

This conference is a travesty. Abbas doesn't represent anyone. You may dislike Hamas, but they did win the support of two-thirds of the Palestinian voters two years ago, and they are the lawful government in that country. Isn't that supposed to be the prime rule of the game of democracy?

Polat Guelkan, Cankiri,

The 7 Year Tribulation Period? Something to think about.

Mike, Duke Center, PA

No deal without agreement on a Third Temple on the Temple Mount.

Clyde, Vancouver,

I just wanted to add my nod to what Tariq Shah just said

Geoffrey, Sydney,

Nothing will destroy / undermine Al Qaeda faster than a fair Arab-Israeli peace agreement in which Palestine becomes a real state.

Tariq Shah, Lahore, Pakistan

I thought Tony bLIAR was the Peace Envoy. Is he too untrusted by all to be asked to participate. How does he justify his salary. "God Knows".. perhaps !!!

Danny , Eastbourne,

Bush dosen't need to TRY he has the power to order Israel to come to a deal, or maybe the Zionists are realy in charge at the Whitehouse.

waine UK, merseyside, UK