The ministries of Foreign Affairs and the international media, in recent days, focus your batteries in Annapolis, the capital of the State of Maryland, which from next day 27, will host the Middle East peace conference. This event was announced by the occupant of the White House beyond the month of July, when most scientists directed their gaze towards Turkey, scene of the first successful Islamist so-called moderate, bent on Touchup by peaceful means, the secular structures of the Republican building designed in the twenties of the last century by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. President Bush referred in his first speech to the celebration of mere consultations on the situation in the Middle East; the idea of an International Conference was taking shape during the first months of autumn, coinciding with the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, trips to the area. Was the assessment made at that time by the head of American diplomacy rather pessimistic. Rice could verify in situ the myriad of unresolved problems, of contradictory reactions from all parties in the conflict. It was not only the positions of Israel and the national Palestinian Authority (PNA), but also and above all of the multiple reservations made by Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, countries interested in the development of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. For Arab statesmen the isolation of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, devised by Israel with the support of United States, constitutes another factor of discord in the already itself unstable regional political landscape. Noted columnist of the rotating Spanish ABC, that the powder keg of Gaza could become the spark for a new conflict with risk of contagion, as happened in Europe in 1914. However, the Bush Administration advocates the presence of fifty Governments and international and regional institutions in the Annapolis meeting, probably shuffling two options: shared success or a failure than the totality of the guests should take. To read more click here: Jack Buckingham.