What Arab-Israeli Crisis?

As the Arab foreign ministers fly to Annapolis, this New York Sun article wonders what crisis needs to be solved at the peace conference. Especially with no foreseeable end to the Fatah/Hamas infighting, the Israelis and their allies see the Arab-Israeli conflict as a rather lopsided "crisis." Sure, the Palestinians are still a nation without a state and Israeli actions are still able to work Arab populations into a lather. But the Israeli army remains strong, the economy is outpacing their Arab neighbors, and they are demographically stable. The Golan Heights haven't been militarily contested in 34 years. For those who rank Arab distress rather low on their list of concerns -- and the New York Sun certain qualifies -- it is unclear why Israel should be willing to sacrifice much at Annapolis.

Coupled with Syrian intractability, this is just another reason not to expect any diplomatic breakthroughs this week. The article suggests abandoning the pretense of forging a wide-ranging peace in the Middle East this week, and instead focus on the actual crisis in Lebanon.

"If the Bush administration's goal is to wring out new Israeli concessions for an elusive peace, potentially destabilizing the one stable democracy in the Middle East, Annapolis will lead nowhere, or at least nowhere worth leading to. On the other hand, supporting democratically oriented forces in Lebanon, as well as the rest of the Arab and Muslim world, is a worthy cause.

Can Annapolis be used to unite the Arab states in a sharp warning to Syria and Iran, regarding continued obstruction in Lebanon? Would that even have any tangible effects? I don't pretend to have the answers. But they certainly are interesting questions.