Israel Palestine Forum

One view of the Annapolis "meeting" and the peace process leading up to it holds that, while there will inevitably be difficulties and problems along the way, it is a genuine attempt at peace by both sides with a real possibility of making substantial progress. People of this persuasion may point to Olmert's statements indicating a willingness to return parts of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians and the moderate politics of Abbas as evidence for their optimism.

A different take on the situation holds that while both sides are sincere in their efforts to move closer towards a just two-state settlement, political conditions are such that the current peace push is unlikely to achieve anything significant or productive. To support this view, one may point to the conflict between Hamas and Fatah, and the fact that Abbas's government - however moderate it may be - lacks democratic legitimacy and has little control over Gaza. Hamas enjoys the support of enough Palestinians to ensure that its cooperation will be necessary for any serious attempt at peace, and that cooperation just doesn't exist at the moment. Furthermore, on the Israeli side we have a very weak Prime Minister whose coalition relies on the support of extreme right-wingers Shas and Avigdor Lieberman, who have threatened to quit if Olmert makes too many 'concessions'. The International Crisis Group recently published a detailed report ('After Gaza') that reached essentially this conclusion - a serious peace effort is not possible without some minimal level of cooperation betwen Fatah and Hamas, and that just isn't happening right now.

A third view agrees with all the reasons given above about hostile political conditions, but adds that in any event, Israel is not sincere in its peace overtures and in fact continues to reject the international consensus two-state settlement (namely, full withdrawal in exchange for peace, with an independent Palestinian state established on the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital). People who hold this view may compare Olmert's rhetoric with the government's actions on the ground - for example, even as Olmert was making lovely speeches about "statehood" and returning some of East Jerusalem, the IDF issued an expropriation order for over 1,100 dunams of land from four Palestinian villages between East Jerusalem and the settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim - the clear aim being to free up the "E-1" area for Israeli development. As veteran Ha'aretz correspondent Akiva Eldar wrote,

"This order is synonymous with putting an end to working on an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of the principle of two states with territorial contiguity".

Likewise, Israeli settlements have continued to expand throughout 2006 and 2007, both east and west of the wall. Settlement expansion in the Jordan Valley continued, as did Israeli house demolitions there. Further, the illegal wall - described by the OCHA as a "de facto border" - continued to be constructed along a route that, when completed, will annex to Israel approx. 10% of the West Bank, trapping some 60,000 Palestinians in no-man's land between the wall and the Green Line. The projected route of the wall extends deep into Palestinian territory around Israeli settlement blocs (Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumim), and when complete will cut East Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank. Such actions, it is argued, are not at all consistent with a government genuinely seeking a just two-state settlement - on the contrary, they cohere perfectly with Israel's long established objective of severing the West Bank into several de facto non-contiguous cantons, annexing the Jordan Valley and allowing the Palestinians to call this "swiss-cheese" territory a "state". They further point to U.S./Israeli policy over the past year, which has been quite openly designed to fuel conflict between Hamas and Fatah and reject any offer of dialogue from a Hamas that entered office in the midst of a year-long self-imposed unilateral ceasefire, talking about a long-term truce with Israel. The fact that Israel/U.S. deliberately caused the collapse of the National Unity Government and are as we speak forbidding Abbas to talk to Hamas - a step that almost all informed analysts agree is a necessary prerequisite to any meaningful attempt at peace - demonstrates clearly that, far from representing a sincere attempt to end the conflict, the current "peace process" is actually driven by short-term political interests (i.e. the drive to isolate Hamas) and is merely a distraction from the continued colonisation of the West Bank.

For what it's worth, I am of the third view - I wrote an article about it here explaining why (with sources n all that).

I'd be interested to hear how others interpret the situation. Any thoughts?

I have very mixed feelings about Annapolis. I think most people would like it to be successful. But I don't think it can be. First, it excludes Hamas & that's just about a deal-breaker. Second, I just can't see Olmert making the kind of conessions he'd need to make for this to work. I don't see Condi willing to bust heads getting both sides to come together in agreement. And I don't see Abbas as a forceful enough leader to carry the day w. the Palestinians.

In short, maybe a miracle will happen and all of my concerns will be overcome. I wish it could be so.

I'm with Richards on this one. The chances of anything positive coming out of this are slim. Rather than such a conference helping resolve problems like the Gaza crisis, recent Syrian-Israeli agitation or Irans nuclear plans I think they first need to be addressed individually. Right now there is little hope of a conference achieving anything and little incentive for anyone to really put any great effort into backing it. The weakness of alot of it's leaders is also a big hurdle. Bush a lame duck with 18 months of his term to serve out and Olmert on the border of being impeached as well as obvious weaknesses in Egyptian, Lebanese and Palestinian leadership.

Perhaps the conference is sincere but now is just not the time or place to have such a conference. Like Richard said, it'll take a miracle for anything significant to come of this conference.

richard: agreed. The basic problem remains: Israel is not yet willing to agree to an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, as demanded by international law and consensus. Yet, this is the minimum any Palestinian leader can credibly accept. Thus, the perennial gap between the two sides' negotiating positions remains. The only thing that can close that gap (by forcing Israel to comply with the law), as far as I can see, is pressure from the U.S.. Sadly, I think you're right to say that simply isn't happening right now, despite Condi's talk - indeed, she even emphasised herself last week that the U.S. would not "impose" anything upon Israel.

Capuchin:

"Rather than such a conference helping resolve problems like the Gaza crisis, recent Syrian-Israeli agitation or Irans nuclear plans I think they first need to be addressed individually."

Well, I'm actually not against the idea of dealing with all the issues in one go (although Iran is something separate) - at least not in principle. This is the approach of the Arab League plan - full Israeli withdrawal from all territories in exchange for full peace and normalisation of relations on the part of the Arab countries. My big problem with this conference is that a) the political conditions are not there for it to stand any chance of succeeding (and this is not by accident, but by design), and b) Israel is simply not interested in the kind of two-state settlement that would be acceptable to Palestinians and that would go at least some way to meeting basic Palestinian legal rights.

My big problem with this conference is that a) the political conditions are not there for it to stand any chance of succeeding (and this is not by accident, but by design), and b) Israel is simply not interested in the kind of two-state settlement that would be acceptable to Palestinians and that would go at least some way to meeting basic Palestinian legal rights.

Boy did you hit the nail on the head.
Now the question is, WTF is Abu Mazen doing?

Well, it seems to me that Abbas has made his bed now. I agree with Alistair Crooke's assesment that Abbas faces a choice between negotiating with Hamas or getting kicked out of office, and that the latter is now the more likely option. It's difficult for him to change course now - he's pretty much burned his bridges with Hamas, and Israel and the U.S. have explicitly conditioned political engagement (and a resumption of financial aid) on his refusal to talk to Hamas.

As to why he started down this dreadful route in the first place - I have no idea. The only explanation I can think of is that Fatah never really came to terms with its loss to Hamas in the January elections.

Abbas doesn't have, and has never had, a popular base of support.

He's the classic minority leader who can be manipulated by outside interests. Without domestic support he is beholden to external powers to maintain his position. And where they lead, he will follow.

The article mentioned below avoids polemics and is a sober intelligent look at possibilities and essentials if this meeting is to succees. It is also, alas, sobering in its conclusions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... -rightrail

I posted this over at DU last night, but I thought you guys might want to read this analysis of the positives and negatives surrounding Annapolis...

http://www.crisisgroup.org:80/home/inde ... d=5174&l=1

bridgebuilder wrote:The article mentioned below avoids polemics and is a sober intelligent look at possibilities and essentials if this meeting is to succees. It is also, alas, sobering in its conclusions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... -rightrail

sami Bahour & Bernard Avishai are each very interesting people in their own right. I'm looking forward to reading this.

One surprising thing about this 'conference' is the media coverage.

Somehow, and atypically, a ray of reality has slipped in; most of the media are talking about 'low expectations' and 'photo op' for Rice.

I heard a report on the radio, haven't been able to find a reference to it -
someone came up with a new word, based on Condi's name, which means "doing nothing". haha. I like that. Something like "to lezo". If anyone has a reference to this pls tell me. (Sounds like something the French would do.)

I'm ignoring the conference; I see more hope [albeit a very small sliver] in the cracks in the public relations facade which continue to appear.

I had been amazed to see the review that Richard mentioned in the NY Review of Books- (Dark Hope). Because - this topic is usually one that we do not read about - unless there is a suicide bomb in Israel. I would disagree with some of the points, but in the main I thought it was a generous article. And comprehensive.

On the same day I happened to read an article in the Wall St Journal - front page- about a Palestinian farmer and his troubles trying to survive through check-points, the Wall, etc.
Very surprising! I thought it was quite a fair article.

ellen

Let's put aside this upcoming conference and see the Bush record in it's totality. Look at all the areas where Bush intervened - in Georgia, Urkraine and Lebanon? All these places have gridlock and are in serious political crises. The opposition forces are working at reversing the course by pushing out the "pro-Western" puppet regimes the Bush administration put in power. This trend has reached Gaza. The WB appears to be Bush's last stand - his Waterloo. So this conference is more about Bush than about solving the P/I conflict. I have no doubt Bush would love nothing better than to end his reign with some kind of "peace deal" that he knows his legacy desperately needs but he also knows he lacks the political capital to bring it about. All in all, this is a sad pathetic desperation play. At the height of his political prowse, he opted to follow the mad policy of the neocons - which basically says "let them fight it out" and "don't restrain Israel". Six years later and after the fighting, it's Hamas that is standing tall and Olmert and Israel looking weak( when you add the Gaza withdrawal and Lebanon fiasco).

So now these weak leaders are prepared to lick their wounds - when they failed to defeat the "hardliners" on the battlefield - they are attempting to defeat them in the political arena. They call for a conference - a way to present the "winners" on the battlefield as "losers" by isolating them - by not inviting them - and by lining up the "pro-western moderates" - like the good puppets they are - standing behind ole glory - and let me guess what Bush and company will be mostly talking about? Well, I will bet the farm, rather than Bush uttering anything meaningful on the P/I conflict, it will be a speech about his side being the peace loving, democracy seeking and human right abiding side, defeating the "terrorists" and dark vision promoting hate filled fanatics on the other side who are marching to Iranian orders ( gotta love the irony of an Empire pointing fingers at other states for exercising their influence for their self-interest). And of course, this show of force by the "moderates" - those invited by Bush and those following the script - represent a clear victory for the good guys.

All good and dandy but what about ending the 40 year Israeli occupation and creating a Palestinian state - well, "the parties themselves will have to negotiate" - so why come to America when the parties themselves are only 15 minute ride apart from Ramallah to Tel-Aviv?

Ahh, this is the kicker, once again, it's all show - not easy when you can't show a single success story on your record - but hey- we got a conference held in Annapolis?

Wonderful, but here is the reality, absent of real serious hammer like pressure on Israel, nothing will move. Bush has yet to show he has the balls or the inclination to go down that route. Former SOS Baker exhibited the kind of toughness that was needed ( although AIPAC and Likud and company won that battle in the end) - telling Shamir and his regime if they were interested in peace to call him but Condi can't play that role for the simple fact she has slept in the devils den for too long and ate of it's bitter fruits - and that includes Bush.

So what now, time to accept the fact, the "hardliners" won. The so called "doves" , "moderates", "pro-western" or even something more laughable, the "Israeli peace camp", such distortion of reality can only go so far before reality imposes it's will.

Defeating the "hardliners", the "anti-peace", "anti-negotiation" , "anti-compromise" , "anti-returning land or anti-ending occupation crowd", "anti-two state solution" crowd is a necessary first step but everything Israel and America have done worked the opposite of that direction even though that was their intended aim( we are told). The methods Israel and America used, starvation, sanctions, isolation, arming the "good guys" and everything in between only insured a defeat for the so called "moderates".

Having said all of that, if anyone thinks the only worry on the Israeli side are the blatant rejectionist party of Lieberman and Likud - they are simply ill informed of Israeli politics. Does anyone really believe Barak wants Olmert to succeed in delivering a peace deal?

Who is kidding who here, Barak is eying the PM seat and he will be the biggest saboteur in this process. He has been already working to sabotage everything from day one. His refusal to ease conditions while Olmert makes promises to Abbas and Rice such actions will be taken are all politically motivated to insure failure.

The truth be told, despite what you keep reading about how polls show the majority of Palestinian and Israeli's want peace ( true in a general sense) and are willing for compromise - but both sides remain far apart on core issues. One can easily argue they are irreconcilable issues - and I'm one to argue that - but beyond that - Israel has never accepted or come to grips with its limited options on many questions. To this day, Israeli leaders continue to believe force alone can delay the inevitability.

To highlight the deluded mind set of the Israeli government, just look at the debate over recognizing "Israel as a Jewish state". Why should we care if Israel is a "Jewish state" or a Chinese state, get out of our lands, end the occupation, treat our Palestinian brothers in Israel fairly and equally under the law - prosper and be happy. But there is something terribly neurotic about all this silly debate; it highlights a pathology that seems hell bent on self-destruction. Who other than Jews care if Israel is a Jewish state, who other than Saudi's care if Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, so why should Palestinians care - we recognize the state of Israel, it's borders and what's inside is up to Jews to worry about.

Anyway, that's my take and I hope I'm wrong on this summit.

I agree with you about Barak. He's a bad egg. Haaretz just wrote an editorial taking him to task for his stupid, patently political posturing.

This is the same guy who supposedly wanted peace so badly in 2000 when he was PM. Now he stands in the way because he wants to be PM again. Well, sorry it doesn't work that way. I say give Olmert a real chance. If he fails then he should be taken to task. But don't dump on Olmert & Annapolis before it even begins. And I want to make clear that I'm by no means a fan of Olmert's.

Joek, I agree with every single point you made.

michael wrote:Abbas doesn't have, and has never had, a popular base of support.

He's the classic minority leader who can be manipulated by outside interests. Without domestic support he is beholden to external powers to maintain his position. And where they lead, he will follow.

Without Hamas at the table the whole excersice is futile.
The ISM should be requested to broker a `truce`or hudna.

Note to all: This post is from a troll called Queer Justice pretending to be Tom Joad. Who knows why this sick weirdo wants to pretend to be Tom, but next time he tries maybe he should try to mask his IP address so his real IP of 99.231.10.142 doesn't show up, and try to hide that `unique`way of his where the dit-dits all go in the same direction...

Truly pathetic....

Violet Crumble
Site Admin