ANALYSIS: The importance of who attends Annapolis from Arab states
The level of officials Arab countries send to the upcoming Mideast peace conference is vital to its success.
By Zvi Bar'el Tags: Annapolis conference Palestinian AuthorityThe pessimism barometer surrounding the Annapolis summit now includes a new measure: in addition to the question that has yet to be answered - which Arab states will attend - everyone is waiting for Thursday to hear about the level of the delegations the Arab states will send. Will the Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo tomorrow select themselves, signaling their desire to give real Arab backing to the summit? Or will they only dispatch ambassadors, by which Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will understand that the Arab support he enjoys is limited and that those dignitaries' presence is merely an attempt to contain the insult to U.S. President George W. Bush?
The Arab states may be encouraged by the fact that the United States and Israel have stepped back from their initial positions on Syria, and Damascus was invited to participate in the summit. This has eroded significantly the distinction made between "moderate states" and recalcitrant ones. But the Arab aegis provided to Syria, and the need to adopt her, is not only due to the Golan Heights and negotiations with Israel. More urgently, it is to gain Syria's agreement to the appointment of a new president in Lebanon.
This does not contribute to bolster Abbas, who is already facing serious domestic pressures, with calls for him to boycott Annapolis. Abbas will find it difficult to present a conciliatory stance if around the table he sees Arab ambassadors. This will not only be an insult - it will ensure that he does not diverge one iota from the historical principles of the Palestinian struggle and insist on discussing the conflict's core issues.
The Arab misgivings and fundamental question of whether to attend the summit also reflect the degree to which Washington's standing has been eroded. In July, when Bush announced his initiative, he still believed that at least those "moderate states" will be automatic partners to any American initiative. It now turns out that even an invitation to a conference that is only a get-together - a ceremony of declarations - has become a bargaining chip for Arab states that have so far been unable to resolve a single conflict. Not only are they bridesmaids, they are active actors in the negotiations.
As a result, the United States and Israel are holding two sets of negotiations: one with Abbas, the real guest of honor, and the other with the Arab leaders, in an effort to convince them to show up and support the talks with Abbas. As such, the Arab leaders are given the legitimacy to present their own preconditions for actually holding a meeting.
It is hard to be critical of these leaders when Bush himself linked the Annapolis initiative to the decisions of the Arab League during its Beirut summit in 2002, where the Arab states adopted the Saudi initiative and turned it into an Arab initiative. The Arab League countries see themselves as being obligated to ensure that the Annapolis summit will not diverge from the League's decision. This time it is not merely the Palestinian question, but also the Golan Heights that are on the agenda. Without this, Syria had made it clear that it will not show up.
Could Saudi Arabia, for example, permit itself to appear at the summit - not to mention send its foreign minister - if Syria refuses to participate? Will Bush agree to include the Golan Heights on the agenda so that Saudi Arabia will participate? These questions hint at the diplomatic leverage that the declaratory summit at Annapolis can exercise on the Middle East. As such, Israel, which lowered expectations for the summit to a ceremony for mid-term report cards, may return from the conference with things it had not ordered, such as conditions for moving forward on the real process, the one with the Palestinians.
|
Jordan's King Abdullah II (R) being welcomed to Damascus on Sunday by Syrian President Assad. (AP) |
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
There is one much more important thing which must be done for the whole process to succeed and not end in failure as seems today. It is an agreement on what happens after there is an agreement on the final status. For example an agreement that following an agreement on final status there will be negotiations on a detailed staged implementation agreement. Without such an agreement Israel will not allow an agreement to be reached. The security risk of a quick implementation following an agreement on the final status is just too high. No Israeli prime minister will take such a risk. It will also be impossible for the coalition to survive an attempt to implement such a peace. On the other hand and implementation agreement whith stages which each side carries in turn will allow observing that the creation of a functional Palestinian state is on track. If it is not, the process will be stopped. It will also allow seeing whether there is popular support for a true peace.
For the past 60 years the Arab world has virtually nothing for the Palestinians in solving the refugee problem, offering aid, or standing shoulder to shoulder for their cause. They muster up enthusiasm when it comes to confronting Israel, but besides that, ltttle else. And now that the time has come to attempt to solve the problem once and for all, to pursue a two state solution, and begin negotiations, it appears that the Arab world is going to do nothing but tie Abbas's hands behind his back at the negotiating table. Will they pressure him against making concessions, about possible taking steps to make peace with us and thereby prolong and escalate the conflict? I am curious as to whether the Arab world really wants to solve the Palestinian problem at all, even as much as Israel does, or as much as the Palestinians themselves. If the Arab ambassadors are going to place sticks in the spokes of the wheels, what is the point of having them there?
The Palestinian conflict is the centerpiece of a regional peace accord, which is why Arab League participation is essential. A regional, comprehensive peace is essential to recover the Middle East from descent into radical chaos fueled by the impasse created by radical Zionists and Hamas, who will soon be joined by Al Qaida if the status quo is not changed. Annapolis is not something to be avoided, but embraced as an existential neccessity by Israel. To this end, it would be most prudent to include credit to the Saudi Initiative in the joint declaration, and, if not already done, the Golan issue on the agenda at Annapolis. This will immensely improve the atmosphere and spirit of cooperation, which will bring dividends to Israel far in excess of what the right wingers hope to gain by spoiling and foot dragging. The value of peace attainable today, far eclipses the woe of continued descent into quicksand.
I wonder if Ahmadlunaticjad from Iran will attend Annapolis? What is the difference between him and Saudi Arabia attending? Why not invite Osama? He is part of the Muslim/ arab nation?
"Or will they only dispatch ambassadors, by which Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will understand that the Arab support he enjoys is limited and that those dignitaries' presence is merely an attempt to contain the insult to U.S. President George W. Bush?" Saudi Arabia, in particular, will not wish to be too closely identified with the goings-on at Annapolis. It has already set out its own plan for the resolution of the conflict.
This is a pretty depressing analysis. And certainly one that further makes me pissed at the idea of the Arab League. Granted, Arab presence that is not Palestinian has had a long term hand in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. But if they're going to be half-assing the upcomming summit, then it would be in Abbas' best interest to flip them the finger and just move forward with what he feels is best. To at least make some progress in any area of discussions would give people worldwide hope that this conflict can end. At the same time though, Olmert is going to have to grow his own pair of balls and face down his own nation's pricks for progress to be made. Releasing 450 prisoners and stating settlement expansion will freeze is one thing. But he needs to actually follow through with these acts with as little delay as possible.