 |
Five Questions About Annapolis |
 |
With the announcement that Syria will send a delegate to Tuesday’s Israeli-Palestinian conference in Annapolis, the talks are taking on a greater degree of credibility. The dynamic character of events, however, has convinced me that making predictions is foolish. Instead, I’ll simply pose what I see as the five biggest questions looming over the conference:
1. Will the result of the talks be a plan or an agreement?
That is, will they, in keeping with the various other plans leaders have laid out (Oslo, the Road Map, etc.) lay out a set of conditions and goals intended to lead to the creation of a Palestinian state some time in the future (and thus minimizing the chances of that event ever occuring), or will they constitute an actual agreement to establish an indepenent, sovereign Palestinian state now?
2. What is the United States’ interest in these talks - improving Bush’s legacy or building peace in the Middle East?
As the Iraq Study Group Report suggested, “The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability” (page 7). If addressing Israel/Palestine is one key to progress in Iraq, the reverse may also be true. Iraq will be one of the many elephants in the room at Annapolis. So what is the administration’s mentality? Are they keeping a regional perspective in mind, and do they intend to use goodwill gained from the conference to help push for regional cooperation in achieving progress in Iraq? Or are they myopically searching for a good photo op to put next to Bush’s picture in the history books? Or something in between?
3. Will Syria represent Hamas?
Clayton Swisher, Al Jazeera’s Middle East analyst, said Syria’s participation will symbolise the importance of Hamas’ involvement in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
And if Syria represents Hamas’ interests, does that reveal a fundamental hypocrisy in the Bush administration’s Middle East policy - namely, that they won’t “negotiate with terrorists” until the clock begins to run out, and they realize they have to negotiate with everyone?
4. Will the political will to implement a solution exist? Al Jazeera has some sobering numbers about Israeli public opinion:
Almost 70 per cent of Israelis support holding the conference, but roughly the same number - 71 per cent - believe it won’t help move along the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Though Israelis tend to support negotiating with the Palestinians, they remain skeptical about the chances for peace and back relatively hardline negotiating positions, the poll showed. Olmert has said the sides can reach a final peace agreement by the end of 2008, but 82 per cent of Israelis don’t believe that will be possible. Asked if Israel should agree to dismantle most of its West Bank settlements - one of the key Palestinian demands - 55 per cent of the Israelis said no. Two-thirds of respondents said Israel should not agree to compromise on control of Jerusalem, which is another central demand from the Palestinians who want the eastern part of the city as capital of a future state.
The New York Times suggests that there is “hope for leaders’ cooperation, but little for results”:
A weak Mr. Olmert, under criminal investigation and political pressure, has been reluctant to take on the settlers, offend his religious coalition partners or challenge the security establishment. The Palestinians are riven by an ever harsher divide, both physical and political, between Gaza, now run by Hamas, and the West Bank, where Mr. Abbas’s Fatah movement is split and where his American-supported prime minister, Salam Fayyad, not a member of Fatah, has little political or military backing.
There is a deep sense, among Palestinians and not just Israelis, that Mr. Abbas, although he was elected essentially unopposed, is a virtual president in charge of little, and that if the Israeli military pulled out of the West Bank, he would not last more than a day.
Given the obstacles to actually pushing through a peace agreement, I understand why many parties feel pessimistic.
5. Will there be an uptick in violence?
The failure of Camp David contributed to the outbreak of the second intifada. As the situation in Gaza worsens, and clashes between Hamas and Fatah increase, the potential for violence is clear. Could Annapolis, then do more harm than good?
Check back Tuesday for an update.
It’s too bad Bush wasted 7 years refusing to talk to anyone. It’s therefore pretty amazing that the people that were invited to this get-to-gether actually agreed to come, particularly Syria in light of the recent criticism of them as a “State sponsor of terrorism”. You have an excellent question regarding Hamas, but I think the issue of Hezb ‘Allah needs to be addressed as well. Abbas is not truly representative of all the Palestinian people, who after all, elected Hamas in their most recent election. And Hesb’Allah is de facto in charge in Lebanon as a result of the most recent Israeli incursion into that country.
We can only wonder what might have happened if this administration was truly and honestly serious about peace in the Middle East - if Bush had engaged in this process at the beginning of his administration instead of at the end……
Ah well, at least they are all talking. It’s better than suicide bombers and tanks tearing down houses.
Hey, where’s Tony Blair in all this? Didn’t he just get a big appointment as Mid-East Omsbudman?
It is pretty amazing anyone came. To me, that speaks to the soft power that America still has to get things done in the world. When we want to twist arms diplomatically, we still can. Which also means that all the rhetoric saying diplomacy just doesn’t work (see Iraq, Iran) is complete bull.