After years of marked absence, the Bush administration has finally decided to upgrade its involvement in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The announcement of a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland has raised red flags for anyone who has learned from past experience how unbalanced and insincere peace efforts actually can lead to further violence. And it requires little cynicism to ponder how genuine these current efforts are.
It has been suggested that President Bush — whose actions have thus defined his legacy as that of a war president — wishes to leave on a more positive note. We heard the same argument in mid 2000 when President Bill Clinton facilitated ill-prepared talks, the failure of which sparked tension and violence, which were of course blamed solely on Palestinians.
Others argue that the conference is motivated not by a desire for lasting peace, but by the wish to further isolate Hamas – the party that was democratically elected by a decisive majority in the Occupied Territories’ legislative elections in January 2006.
Regardless of the fact that the transparency of the elections was praised by international monitors such as Jimmy Carter, the democratically elected winner was completely shunned by the US and Israel. Instead they cautioned Fatah, President Abbas political party, against joining a proposed coalition government with a party they deemed as terrorist. All attempts at forging national unity among the conflicting factions were destined to failure, since such attempts were met by joint US-Israeli resolve to topple Hamas.
As the division between Fatah and Hamas grew, the Bush
administration began hinting at the possibility of hosting a peace
conference. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who had previously
insisted on the ‘unilateral’ paradigm – predicated on the assumption
that Israel has no peace partner amongst Palestinians – now agreed to
take part in the event. President Abbas, widely perceived with contempt
by many Palestinians and Arabs, understood that his participation could
help provide him with greater political validity. Hamas, of course, was
notably not invited.
In the build-up to the conference, Olmert
and Abbas have been holding regular meetings. Statements and
declarations made by both leaders and their advisors indicate that
Israel is striving to lower expectations, while Abbas hopes to turn the
conference into a platform for serious negotiations. Their last meeting
took place in Jerusalem on Friday, October 26, the purpose of which was
reportedly to resolve issues over a joint statement. Nabil Abu Rdeneh,
Abbas’ spokesman told reporters, “Today we expect the Israelis to stop
putting obstacles preventing us from reaching a joint statement for the
fall summit.”
Olmert, with little popularity amongst the
Israelis and a weakening mandate in the country’s parliament, is
repeatedly attempting to water down expectations. He even claims to be
unsure as to whether the conference will take place at all, reportedly
telling journalists on Thursday, October 25, "If all goes well,
hopefully, we will meet in Annapolis. [But] Annapolis is not made to be
the event for the declaration of peace."
This overt lowering of
expectations suggests that the Bush administration knows well that the
conference will not deliver peace; neither Abbas nor Olmert seem
equipped for such a task. Moreover, the administration has displayed
virtually no signs of being an honest broker; its unreserved and
unconditional backing of Israel is stronger than ever. The conference
will likely be a media spectacle in which participants will reaffirm
their commitment to peace, Israel’s security, condemnation of
Palestinian terrorism and so forth.
What is truly dangerous is
the fact that a peace conference which delivers nothing but empty
promises is likely to actually precipitate violence. Palestinians,
humiliated and besieged, might exhibit their anger in a myriad of ways,
for which they will only receive further condemnation.
Following
Israel’s recent declaration of Gaza as a hostile entity, and the more
recent decision to gradually cut electricity supplies to parts of the
Gaza Strip, the situation in the impoverished strip is growing more
desperate everyday. A peace conference with no political horizon – one
that was repeatedly promised by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice –
will add more fuel to the already volatile political landscape in
Palestine and Israel. Considering the violence that followed the failed
Camp David talks of July 2000, similar scenarios are most palpable. In
order for a peace conference to bring a true, lasting and just peace
between Palestinians and Israelis, democracy and the collective choices
of the Palestinian people must be respected.
The Palestinian
delegation needs to represent all Palestinians and must carry a clear
mandate to negotiate. Israel meanwhile needs to be willing to engage in
serious negotiations, not to win time for its unilateral projects in
the West Bank, but to discuss final status issues without delay,
notwithstanding the status of Jerusalem and refugees. International law
must be respected by both parties, and by the US hosts as a mutual
frame of reference, according to which a conflict resolution can be
tailored.
Without these conditions, the Maryland conference,
and any other, will most likely fail, a failure that could tragically
drag the entire region deeper into the dark abyss of military
occupation, state violence and, indeed, terrorism.
-Ramzy
Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of
PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers
and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian
Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
