At the time of writing, it would seem that the proposed United States-sponsored Middle East peace summit will be taking place in Annapolis, Maryland, on November 15 this year. This is an important initiative and needs to be supported by all in the Middle East and the international community. The reason for this should be obvious to all: the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a festering sore at the heart of the Middle East that is fanning the flames of radicalism from which organisations like al-Qaeda can draw fresh recruits.
This is a point well made by Jordan’s King Abdullah in his address to the US Congress. To undercut this radicalism, the hopes and aspirations of the long-suffering Palestinian people for their own independent state needs to be realised. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict therefore is both a strategic and a moral issue that needs to be resolved speedily.
The US administration needs to be commended with resources it has quickly put into the summit’s planning. This is most graphically seen in the number of trips US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been making to the Middle East. She has made clear that the summit must be substantive and that the two sides must draft a document before the talks to lay the foundations for serious negotiations. To this end, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have met on numerous occasions in the run-up to the summit.
The seriousness with which the Palestinians are approaching the summit is obvious to all. Abbas has already informed Rice of the composition of the Palestinian negotiating team, which will be headed by Ahmed Qureia, a former Palestinian prime minister who also led interim talks with Israel in the 1990s.
Abbas also made clear the end state he desires: “ending the Israeli occupation of our lands that began in 1967, in conforming with international law, the road map, the vision of US President Bush, the Arab initiative and signed accords”. He went further and stated that the time is right “for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, and for living side by side in peace and security with the state of Israel”. To this end, Abbas and his team have been working on detailed plans in preparation for the peace summit.
At face value, it would seem that Olmert is equally serious about the summit. After all, in his speech to the Israeli Knesset in October he stated boldly that the time for making excuses for not talking to the Palestinian leadership was over and that he intended to devote the coming year to promoting peace with the Palestinians.
However, actions do speak a thousand words and in his meetings with Abbas he has been decidedly vague about the substance of peace proposals, whereas Abbas quite rightly wanted greater details. Moreover, despite the pending peace summit, Israeli land confiscations are continuing. This time it was the West Bank village of al-Akkaba that was served with demolition orders by the Israeli army for being in a “militarized zone” and building “without planning permission”.
Such vagueness about peace proposals and the ongoing demolitions of Palestinian villages while illegal Israeli settlements mushroom runs counter to the spirit of peace. It is essential that the international community and especially Washington put greater pressure on Olmert to understand the important principle that peace is impossible without compromise.
Without Hamas at the table there is no hope of a peace settlement. That is a simple political fact.Hamas – whether you like them or not – won the last elections, and has substantial support. Hoping for a peace deal without the main players around the table is impossible. Do you honestly believe the United States under George Bush is an honest broker?
I must confess that I stopped trying to understand the mechanics of this conflict a while ago. While I think that most political situations can be summed up in one paragraph, this certainly doesn’t fir that mould.
The problem is that I don’t think that, of the thousands (possibly millions) of words I have read on the subject, including about eight biographies, I have ever read a neutral account of the real issues. Each time I think I am closer to a clear understanding of where each side stands, I read a compelling argument from the other side.
Is there an item of reading I could possibly lay my hands on that could educate this self-admitted Middle East ignoramus?
The probnlem with mid-east peace is that both sides have to be willing to make concessions. Unfortunately to date we see the Israelis making concessions and the Palestinians grabbing what was given, while doing nothing in return. What has postphoned this conference todate? The fact that the Palestinian negotiators are essentially asking to be given everything in the document before the conference even starts!
Every player is a prisoner of his/her OWN constituency.
Any American president knows that the large and powerful US Jewish voting lobby has the power to be kingmakers in a close presidential and congressional elections. He (or possibly, she) dare not get too offside with the views of this consitutuency or be wiped out at the polls. So can the US be an honest broker? No.
Can the democratic government in the Knesset make more concessions and at a faster pace than they have already done? Any democracy has to keep the distance between REFLECTING the views of the voters and LEADING those voters to new pastures a narrow distance. You don’t run miles ahead of the pack you’re leading and remain a leader. Olmert knows this. Sometimes the swift front-runner leader will HAVE to backtrack in order to reconnect with his tardy pack of followers. And the turn-back isn’t necessarily an indication of a reverse of direction for the whole pack. Can Olmert move faster? No.
Can the fragmented Palestinians — whichever faction — reconcile themselves to the extent where they really CAN rein in the large band of violent hotheads who will not even take the first step of accepting the state of Israel as an immovable reality? No.
The Israelis AND the Palestinians have to lead their two peoples CLOSER to each other’s point of view and concessions it must come from both sides SIMULTANEOUSLY. Not in a tit-for-tat sequence and waiting for the other side to blink and retreat first.