The bicycle is going forward, over rough ground, and very shakily. It might lose momentum at any time. And then, how many of those now perched atop it will tumble to the ground?
Or, is there anything those now aboard it can do to give it some real forward momentum?
This is an interesting question. George Bush may have thought that, by succeeding in getting so many participants to come to Annapolis, he would put added pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians– well, especially the Palestinians– to make the concessions that would be needed for a diplomatic success.
He may have thought that by getting such a broad turnout he would succeed in increasing the diplomatic isolation of Iran.
I think, though, that with the broad turnout he succeeded mainly in creating extra pressure on his own administration to perform effectively in the diplomacy started in Annapolis. All those invitees are all now, to one degree or another, invested in the process. (In the case of the Saudis, I would say that in both cash and political terms, they are are, actually, invested very heavily in it at this point.)
But the Brits, the Russians, the Chinese (as a permanent member of the UNSC), the EU, and the UN itself are all also heavily invested in the post-Annapolis “process”. And not, mainly, by virtue of their having gone to the confab itself, though that is definitely a part of it. But also by virtue of all those parties having very strong interests of their own in Middle Eastern stability, and the fact that post-Annapolis is now “the only game in town” for defusing and resolving the potentially extremely destabilizing Israeli-Palestinian crisis… And it is, as is now quite clear, a very high-stakes game indeed. As of today, the goal has been defined: a final-status agreement between Israel and Palestine before the end of 2008.
So the Bush administration, as the party that prepared, stage-managed, and hosted this gathering, is now in the hot seat. And if Washington cannot perform well in the diplomatic tasks ahead of it, then those other parties, who may have been invited along to Annapolis to play the role of Greek Chorus, may well come to the conclusion that the stage director is wrecking the play– and is causing grievous harm to their own interests in the process– and they, or a sub-group of them may feel they need to move in and take over the show.
This peacemaking business will certainly not be easy, whoever does it. Of course, the rifts within the Palestinian community are huge. (And so will be the rifts inside Israel if the government moves significantly towards the kind of “painful compromises” that Olmert talked about in his speech.)
One thing I really wish Bush had done that could have made a significant difference in the dynamic of the negotiation was to spell out clearly and compellingly that the goal of this process is to have an Israel that is– finally!– at peace with all of its neighbors… an Israel that is no longer threatened by invasion but has straightforward and constructive working relations with not just all its neighbors but also all the Arab states beyond them, too. This is, I know, a good part of the intention of the Arab Peace Plan of 2002. But it corresponds to a much older and deeper dynamic, too: the idea that an Israel that is at peace with all its Arab-state neighbors will have a lot more of the self-confidence required to make those “painful concessions” to the Palestinians who are currently lodged with their necks under the IDF’s boots.
That’s why I think it is a huge pity that Bush was so peremptory and dismissive of the Syrians at Annapolis. In fact, he didn’t even mention Syria in his address, and neither did Olmert or Abu Mazen. [Correction, Wed. evening: Abu Mazen actually did mention the need to end the occupation of Syrian Golan, and the need for “Arab-Israeli” peace as well as Palestinian-Israeli peace. Sorry about my too-fast reading of it last night. ~HC] Olmert mentioned “normalization” with Arab states– but he didn’t mention the vital other part of that equation, which is a successfully negotiated final peace agreement with all of Israel’s Arab neighbors, and Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied lands in Syria and Lebanon, as well as Palestine.
If a comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace is to be reached, that requires active engagement on the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese tracks. And Syria is not a small or weak power. It has considerable influence inside the political communities in both Lebanon and Palestine. Bringing the Syrians fully into the process at Annapolis would have served the cause of peacemaking on all three of the remaining “tracks” and would have transformed the political dynamics of the whole Near East.
By contrast, tricking the Syrians into coming to Annapolis– which is what it looks like right now– and then giving them the cold shoulder once they got there will end up serving nobody’s interests. Doing that may well end up riling a number of the other “big powers” who were represented at Annapolis. And it almost certainly portends further trouble down the road for the hard-pressed people of Lebanon.
I would love for someone to explain to me why the idea of a truly comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, one that ends the state of war that has existed for decades now between Israel and all three of these Arab neighbors, was not enthusiastically embraced and proclaimed in Annapolis by Bush (or, come to that, by either Olmert or Abu Mazen). Does this idea– which seems so inspiring and so powerful to me– somehow induce fear in the members of the Bush administration?
I suppose some people might say, “Well, it’s going to be hard enough to get a decent peace between just the Israelis and Palestinians– but trying to get an Israeli-Syrian peace and deal with the hornet’s nest of Lebanon all at the same time would make the task impossible!” But I think that reaction seriously mis-states the dynamic at work here, which I see roughly in the way I outlined above. Remember, too, that (1) the Syrians have tremendous power– if they are thus motivated–to help bring aboard the peace train (or bike, to keep my metaphors somewhat straight here) numerous Palestinians and Lebanese who would otherwise be inclined to oppose the idea of concluding a final peace agreement with Israel. And (2) just the broad reframing of the whole peace project, by itself– the proclamation that “the goal here is to end the state of war in this whole region and to build it up into a region in which everyone has the chance to live and to thrive in peace”– could have a powerful political effect in communities exhausted and drained by so many decades of war. Especially if it is the whole world, except Iran, who is saying this.
The “vision thing”: that’s what Pres. Bush the Elder used to talk about sometimes, in fairly derisive terms. But I don’t think this particular peace bicycle has any chance of moving forward without it. So if the bike collapses shakily to the ground, who will be the ones falling off?
13 thoughts on “After Annapolis: Bring the Syrians back in!”
Comments are closed.
If God was “hugely important” in influencing his decisions in power, including going to war in Iraq.”
Does Middle East envoy and former British prime minister Tony Blair’s God telling him to do peace in ME also?
Great “independent” thinking Helena – as always!
Seems to me that a related mistake in all of this is the assumption that somehow it is Iran that is to be contained. To the contrary, if one wants a truly sustainable, comprehensive deal for the region, then why not also get the Iranians involved – constructively? (and test the “grand bargain” — the one Condi stupidly ignored at the time, and now denies she knew of it)
Instead, the msm has been nauseatingly playing the Indyk/Bolton/Ross chorus that this conference is primarily about excluding/confronting Iran and “extremism.”
If this in the end is a conference about exclusion, it will fail — just like Madrid and all other attempts that tried to “compartmentalize” one side of the mideast from the other.
If this in the end is a conference about exclusion, it will fail — just like Madrid and all other attempts that tried to “compartmentalize” one side of the mideast from the other
It won’t fail. It can’t. Why? Because it has nothing to do with peace. Since when is Bush, or Olmert interested in peace? Have the Israeli’s given any indication that they would be prepared to end the occupation of the Westbank, or to evacuate the settlements, or to stop building the Apartheids wall (let alone destroying it), or to change the status of East-Jerusalem, or to stop stealing land and water from the Palestinians? Under any circumstances? Answer: none whatsoever. On the contrary. They make it abundantly clear that they haven’t the slightest intention of doing so. So they keep stealing land, and keep building settlements.
Or have Bush, or his Angel of Peace, Condaleezza Rice, given any indication that he (or she) will force the Israeli’s to make any concessions?
Answer: none whatsoever. On the contrary. They make it abundantly clear that they will support Israel, no matter what, and will keep giving it billions of dollars and all the weapons it desires, and more.
Annapolis is a photo-op, to show the Bushes and the Rices and the Olmerts of this world as Peacemakers, which is the exact opposite of what they are.
It’s completely fake. It’s spin.
But as always: it works…..
This conference is a new US show, it’s GWB in 2007 time.
BTW, they call it peace conference, there are no main guidelines been set for it, all what US doing is get as much as Arab number of attendance let them talk, on hope that talk will give fruiting?
Both sides holding his guns, watch the space…
The problem here is the lack of leadership in both sides Israeli side and Arab side. whatever Arab leaders talks and agreed its not get support, backing and confidence by mainstream Arab people, so do US understand what doing or just like the new BUSH/Maliki agreement of setting a new treaty of alliance with Iraq?
If this in the end is a conference about exclusion,
Let’s check:
“Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:”
“Peace in the Middle East was supposed to occur as the Bush government’s school of thought envisioned it: Beginning with Baghdad and the removal of Saddam Hussein, the development of freedom, security, and democracy would radiate throughout the troubled region. This didn’t happen as Bush’s advisors prophesized, and yet the hope for an Israeli-Palestinian compromise remains. This may, in fact, indirectly have something to do with the geopolitical consequences of the Iraq war: the Shiites’ assumption of power in Baghdad means that Iraq can no longer counterbalance Iran’s claims to hegemony.”
“Whether or not this conflict with Iran is the main or partial reason for Bush’s renewed interest in the Middle East, one hopes that that engagement will not flag.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,520176,00.html
In my internet searches for meaningful analysis on Annapolis, I must confess that it is here that I find the most serious meditations on the subject (both by the blog owner and the commenters). Hence, there isn’t really much I can add, at least at this stage, so I will be taking away more than what I will be contributing.
Initially, I saw this whole affair as a trip wire for war with Iran (it still could be). However, I see that there is a slim but growing chance of this taking on a life of its own and perhaps turning into something that Bush didn’t intend. Now I am asking myself: “Who put Bush up to this?” Perhaps the (near) inevitability of an incoming Democratic administration has pushed him in a more productive direction.
Certainly the Baker-Hamilton Group must be pleased. So this is just the latest manifestation of the logic of a change in course that began with the replacement of Rumsfeld by Gates. Perhaps Gary Sick’s cautious optimism is warranted, after all.
Has Cheney weighed in on any of this?
Uri Avnery used the analogy of three bankrupts sitting down to play poker. So they issued IOUs to each other, promising to play again when they had some credit. The idea that this will take place in 2008 is a stretch.
Avnery’s take on Annapolis:
The Annapolis conference is a joke. Though not in the least funny.
Like quite a lot of political initiatives, this one too, according to all the indications, started more or less by accident. George Bush was due to make a speech. He was looking for a theme that would give it some substance. Something that would divert attention away from his fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something simple, optimistic, easy to swallow.
Somehow, the idea of a “meeting” of leaders to promote the Israeli-Palestinian “process” came up. An international meeting is always nice – it looks good on television, it provides plenty of photo-opportunities, it radiates optimism. We meet, ergo we exist.
continued at: http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/
US wages covert war on Iraq-Iran border
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK28Ak01.html
U.S. Special Forces inside Iran?
http://warincontext.org/2007/11/29/news-analysis-editors-comment-us-special-forces-inside-iran/
Annapolis will not go anywhere because …
http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settler_populations/settler_population_1972_2005.html
In quest of “meaningful analysis on Annapolis,” D. Matthews might examine
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_freedland/2007/11/olmerts_bold_step.html
before despairing altogether.
Unlike everybody else (that I know of), Mr. Jonathan Freedland has perceived that a Brave New Levant has sprung into existence since Tuesday morning, one in which “by conceding that ‘this pain and deprivation’ has ‘fomented’ hatred of Israel, Olmert has broken from the usual narrative of the right. The traditional rightist position is that Palestinians hate Israel out of some innate, implacable perhaps even racist loathing: to suggest otherwise is to submit to pinko, European ‘root cause-ism.’ But here is Israel’s own prime minister saying that if Palestinians hate Israel, they have a reason – and, by implication, a good one.”
M. Ehud Olmert’s translated remarks to the assembled circus are available at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546742246&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
To quote Mr. Freedland’s treasure trove in full :
“I wish to say, from the bottom of my heart, that I know and acknowledge the fact that alongside the constant suffering which many in Israel have experienced because of the history, the wars, the terror and the hatred towards us – a suffering which has always been part of our lives in our land – your people have also suffered for many years, and some still suffer. For dozens of years, many Palestinians have been living in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew, wallowing in poverty, neglect, alienation, bitterness, and a deep, unrelenting sense of deprivation. I know that this pain and deprivation is one of the deepest foundations which fomented the ethos of hatred towards us. We are not indifferent to this suffering. We are not oblivious [of] the tragedies you have experienced.
(( “I feel your pain!,” exclaimed What’s-His-Name…. ))
“I believe that in the course of negotiations between us we will find the right way, as part of an international effort in which we will participate, to assist these Palestinians in finding a proper framework for their future, in the Palestinian state which will be established in the territories agreed upon between us. Israel will be part of an international mechanism which will assist in finding a solution to this problem.
(( It would be great fun to advise everybody precisely what meaningful analysis to make of such a passage, but that would only cut into your fun, would it not? Enjoy, enjoy! ))
The problem with Helena’s analysis is, as usual, that she thinks that these conferences are merely to dole out concessions and benefits for Israel’s enemies. Yes, Syria has come to the conference. Very good, do they want a cookie? They are SUPPOSED to go to peace conferences.
If Syria wants the conference to be productive, it’s as incumbent on them as it is for Israel or the U.S. Perhaps they can offer a compromise (gasp!)? Perhaps they can at least make a show of good faith by condemning the childish and racist antics of the Saudi minister, who publicly announces he will not even shake an Israeli representatives hand?