George Bush told the Annapolis summit yesterday that a battle was under way for the future of the Middle East as events on the ground underlined the difficulties ahead for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that were relaunched after seven years.Iran, on cue, said it had developed a new long-range ballistic missile, while thousands of supporters of the Islamist movement Hamas protested in Gaza, chanting "Death to America", "Death to Israel" and scorning the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, as a "collaborator". In the West Bank, Palestinian security forces shot dead a demonstrator.
Bush came to the US naval academy to portray his support for revived "final status" negotiations between Abbas and Ehud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister, against the background of a broader regional struggle. "We must not cede victory to the extremists," he said.
In the Maryland winter sunshine, all was carefully choreographed. "Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realise their aspirations is the key to realising their own, and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state," said Bush. "The time is right, the cause is just and with hard effort I know they can succeed."
Analysts say the key to any future peace process is the degree to which the US, EU and others will be prepared to intervene, hold the parties to their commitments, and bridge gaps when disagreements arise. It is far from clear that Bush is prepared to play that role.
Abbas restated key demands for the removal of Israel’s West Bank settlements, roadblocks, the separation wall and the release of thousands of prisoners – all difficult for Olmert to implement while keeping his shaky coalition government together. "We need East Jerusalem to be our capital," Abbas said. War and terrorism "belong to the past". "Neither we nor you must beg for peace from the other. It is a joint interest … Peace and freedom is a right for us, just as peace and security is a right for you and us," he added.
Olmert, who, like the Palestinian president, is facing powerful opposition at home, spoke to his own people as much to the other leaders. "I had many good reasons to refrain from coming to this meeting," he said. "I do not ignore all the obstacles which are sure to emerge along the way."
He denounced Palestinian terrorism and the Qassam rockets being fired from Gaza. Unusually, he also acknowledged the suffering of Palestinians "living in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew up, wallowing in poverty, neglect, alienation, bitterness and a deep sense of deprivation".
Expectations for Annapolis were kept so low that any vaguely positive achievement would have been impressive. But months of US-brokered diplomacy could not produce a promised joint declaration on the ultra-sensitive "core" issues that have to be negotiated – borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees.
Instead they announced, as expected, the immediate resumption of talks on creating an independent Palestinian state by the end of next year, when Bush is due to leave office. These are to be overseen by a permanent bilateral steering committee and will begin in earnest on December 12. The issues remain as tough and intractable as ever. "We agreed to immediately launch good faith, bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including core issues, without exception," Bush said, reading the agreed statement.
The Annapolis conference was the biggest of its kind since the Madrid summit of 1991. The 14 Arab participants included Saudi Arabia, represented by its foreign minister, taking part in the kingdom’s first public meeting with Israel.
"It is time to end the boycott and alienation toward the state of Israel," Olmert said.
"I have no doubt that the reality created in our region in 1967 will change significantly.
"While this will be an extremely difficult process for many of us, it is nevertheless inevitable. I know it. Many of my people know it. We are ready for it."
RELATED:
If the conference fails, what’s Plan B for peace?
By Daoud Kuttab- The Daily Star (Lebanon)Nov 28 2007http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=87060
American officials usually spend enormous energy highlighting the "process" in the Middle East "peace process." Only in the last 18 months of a second-term president or following a military engagement in the Middle East does the United States actually start to concern itself with "peace."
This pattern seems to be holding true for this week’s US-sponsored Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland. The difference now is that, unlike the Madrid Conference after the 1991 American-led Gulf war, the current effort is coming after a perceived American defeat in Iraq.
Assuming that the Bush administration is serious in its current efforts, the US must have a Plan B in case the just-completed Annapolis talks fail. For Palestinians, the main concern is to avoid negative repercussions if they do. Unlike former President Bill Clinton, who blamed Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for the failure of the Camp David talks in 2000, the Bush administration must honor its commitment not to point fingers or allow either side to use failure to advance its strategic goals.
Palestinian negotiators have always had to balance three issues: historic rights, current realities, and the price of using their negative power. For Palestinians, the codewords for historic rights – liberating Palestinian land, securing the right of return for refugees, and insisting on a truly independent state – are "international legitimacy." For both the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas, this refers to various United Nations resolutions and international public opinion, which have amounted to little more than lip service on the part of Western powers and Arab and Islamic leaders, whose statements raise false hopes, enticing Palestinian negotiators to harden their positions.
The current realities that the Palestinians must reckon with include their strategic, political, and economic imbalance vis-a-vis Israel and the United States, the reality of occupation, and the challenges of diaspora life. For example, Israel’s harsh policies to confront the 1987 intifada, coupled with the boycott of the PLO by oil-rich Arab countries (because of its failure to oppose Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait), imposed a potent reality check on the Palestinian leadership.
Finally, Palestinian negotiators after Annapolis will have to consider the consequences of using their most valuable bargaining chip – the ability to reject a perceived bad deal – in terms of its direct effect on Palestinians and the strong possibility of continued expansion of Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands.
The late Haidar Abdel Shafi repeatedly stated one of the major problems in the Oslo Accords, namely that it didn’t secure the halt of settlement expansion in the interim period or if final-status talks failed. At Camp David II, in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak cleverly insisted that the first clause of his offer included acceptance of the end of the conflict, which was a problem for Palestinians, given that historic rights remained unresolved. Arafat used his negative power and blocked a settlement, but he couldn’t predict the consequences.
Before Annapolis, Palestinian negotiators insisted that they did not plan to engage in substantive negotiations. They argued that the positions acceptable in Taba (following the failure of Camp David II) had to be the basis of any agreement, and that what needed be negotiated afterward was the timetable for implementation. Backed by a reasonable Arab peace plan, they insist that there is already a worldwide consensus on restoring the 1967 borders (with mutual adjustments of equal size and quality), the need for a fair agreement on dealing with refugees, and a formula to share Jerusalem.
As a result, Palestinian negotiators have reversed their position on the step-by-step approach to negotiations – an approach that proved disastrous, as it was exploited by radicals on both sides and gave the Israelis the time they needed to build more illegal settlements.
Fears abound among Palestinians of another spasm of violence if no agreement if the Annapolis round of talks fails. But what is crucially important for Palestinians is that, whatever the outcome, new Israeli settlements must not be built and land expropriation must end.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that the creation of a Palestinian state is a component of US national security. But a Palestinian state will not appear now or in 10 years if Israel continues build settlements in areas slated to be part of that state.
Daoud Kuttab is currently a visiting professor at Princeton University. THE DAILY STAR