Last update - 00:00 30/11/2007
Grand vision, limp leaders
By Yoel Marcus
The international airlines hit the jackpot on Sunday and Monday as the leaders and envoys of more than 40 countries made the long journey to Annapolis with their secretaries, advisers and bodyguards for one of the shortest conferences President George W. Bush has ever convened.
This mass turnout even included Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, whose foreign minister didn't shake Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's hand but was seen clapping at the end of his speech. This was a personal triumph for the American president, first and foremost in isolating Iran and Hamas, and achieving broad support for efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel's leaders of old viewed international summits with dread lest they lead to some imposed solution. Their descendants starred at Annapolis, relaxed and cheerful. The U.S. administration studiously avoided calling it an international conference. Everyone spoke about Annapolis and reported on it as if it were the name of a movie or the latest play.
Olmert was not caught on camera even once without a smile or looking pleased with himself, as if the summit's purpose was only to put the squeeze on the Palestinians. He even smiled when Bush imposed an ultimatum on both sides, demanding that they reach an agreement by the end of 2008, very close to the U.S. president's last days in office.
The two sides' joint declaration, like all such declarations, may not be worth the paper it is written on. But Bush insisted on it, and the document was signed a few minutes before it was read aloud. Apart from the surreal timetable, some of the wording is rather peculiar. For example, the part where it says, "We express our determination to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis." Now that is a strange admission: The implication is that Israel has signed a paper in which it defines itself as a terrorist state.
Another odd turn of phrase is "in furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side..." Odd, because at the moment, Palestine itself consists of two "states" - a Fatah state and a Hamas state - and there is no chance for an agreement as long as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas speaks in the name of both of them.
There were some who viewed the summit as the start of an imposed solution. That day may come, but it didn't happen at Annapolis. Those who know Bush well say he won't force a solution on us. As a religious man, he will not change his skin or backpedal on his commitments on Jerusalem and the refugees. At most, he may demand that we dismantle the outposts. If Israel has any intention of reaching an agreement, it needs to do so while this man is still in the White House.
It is no accident that Bush chose a target date before he leaves office for implementing the joint declaration of principles. This is his vision and his road map, and at Annapolis he provided the international backdrop. In practice, Bush is telling us: I got the motor started. The rest is up to you. As a president whose term has been studded with one failure after another, especially in Iraq, Bush wants to sound his last chord in the White House with a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Bush has given us to understand that there is no guarantee the next president will be as friendly and supportive as he is. His successor is liable to apply an array of pressures on Israel. We've been in such situations before - in the days of President Gerald Ford, for example, not to mention Charles de Gaulle, when France, our "dear friend and ally," suddenly slapped Israel with an embargo on vital arms.
As America stands poised to help both sides resolve the core issues, we need to remember that Bush is personally striving to end his presidency with an accomplishment that will go down in history. He expects us to go along with him and do our bit, by evacuating settlements, for instance. On the day we agreed in Annapolis to a Palestinian state, we embarked on a road of no return. The alternative is having the whole world against us, including the United States and its next president.
Annapolis did its job well. The question is whether two weak leaders like Olmert and Abbas are capable of doing what is expected of them. Is Abbas, who can't even control the state he supposedly leads, strong enough to confront Hamas and grab back the reins of Gaza? Does Olmert, who can't drum up more than 30 percent support in the opinion polls, have the political power to make the concessions demanded of him?
At Annapolis, a grand vision was set before regional leaders endowed with very modest capabilities. In the spirit of the approaching Hanukkah holiday, it seems that a great miracle will not happen here.