Anyone who believes the upcoming Annapolis peace summit is going to achieve anything substantive by territorial compromise is ignoring the reality of a century of conflict. Pushing such an idea is the worst possible thing President Bush could do. The evangelicals who elected him will forgive him for virtually anything – Iraq, immigration policy, government spending – but they will not forgive him for touching Jerusalem or the Bible Lands.

In fact, this idea would be a double political suicide. In the United States, it would be the worst possible thing a president with a popularity rating of 24 percent could do 12 months before an election that will seal his legacy. In Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, whose popularity rating is also a bare 25 percent, is inviting his own political demise by announcing his intention to resurrect the Oslo agreement and the Road Map – as if he had a true partner in peace while Palestinian terrorists fire daily salvoes of rockets and mortars from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel.

The Islamo-fascists who deny Israel’s right to exist while they send suicide bombers around the world to murder anyone else who disagrees with them don’t consider Annapolis as mere theater. They attend conferences such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit in October 2003, where Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made a comment typical throughout the Muslim world:

If we are to recover our dignity and that of Islam, our religion, it is we who must decide, it is we who must act. … We [Muslims] are actually very strong: 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.

The Annapolis conference is not a peace conference, but an “appeasement conference” to coalition-build Arab nations in preparation for an attack on Iran. The Madrid conference in 1991 was the last significant U.S.-sponsored peace conference. It was orchestrated by then-Secretary of State James Baker – who in fact is pulling the strings of the Annapolis parley behind the scenes under the auspices of the Baker-Hamilton Report.

Annapolis is a smoke-and-mirror show in preparation for an attack that could, in fact, accomplish President Bush’s declared goal of preventing World War III – a war that Iran’s nuclear armament program is bringing closer every day. So far, U.N. sanctions have been shrugged off by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs who control him. And as Iran continues to pursue Armageddon, one Gulf state after another is seeking to purchase nuclear components.

Meanwhile, while talking peace out of one side of his mouth, Syrian President Bashar Assad has quietly been following his Iranian masters’ lead. The result was an object lesson for Iran, its allies and imitators: Israel’s bombing raid in September. While Israel’s military censor would confirm only that a bombing raid took place in Syria, without specifying the target, the New York Times and other media have published photographs that clearly show the destroyed objective was a nuclear reactor. Intelligence organizations have revealed the reactor was designed by North Korea specifically to manufacture weapons-grade plutonium.

ABC News reported in July that Israel had shared intelligence on the Syrian site with the U.S. When America declined to act, Israel decided it had to strike in self-defense. It did so over the reported objections of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said Israel and the U.S. should “confront, not attack.”

The previous world war showed the disastrous folly of confronting but not attacking Hitler. Humanity will avoid a new world war – a nuclear one – only by attacking the threat posed by Ahmadinejad’s Iran. In June 1981 in Baghdad and in Syria in September 2007, Israel has shown what must be done to keep the peace.

Related special offer:

Don’t miss Evans’ latest best-seller, “The Final Move Beyond Iraq”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.