Annapolis
I will hopefully find time to write a proper take on the Annapolis “get together” tomorrow – suffice to say, it basically offered a re-affirmation of the long dead “roadmap” (in fact, thanks to Israeli rejectionism, it was stillborn) and a promise to reach a settlement within a year (because, as we know, deadlines have been treated as sacrosanct throughout the “peace process”).
Until then, you’ll have to make do with an excellent analysis of the “Annapolis process” by Robert Blecher and Mouin Rabbani in MERIP. A couple of key paragraphs:
“But, on the other hand, what seems to be a victory of sorts should be recognized for the failure that it is: Annapolis was not supposed to be a launching pad for final status talks, as an adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team put it. Rather, the Maryland meeting was supposed to mark the halfway point to a final status agreement. If the two teams could not agree, in the course of nearly two months, upon a short statement of the most basic parameters for a resolution — the 1967 border with minor and reciprocal territorial modifications, a divided Jerusalem as the capital of two states, a negotiated solution to the refugee question — why would another eight months (as the Palestinian team wanted) or 14 (as Olmert suggested) help? After 15 years of on-again, off-again negotiations, why would time be the salient variable? And even should Israeli and Palestinian negotiators find common ground before Bush’s term ends, what hope does either government have of selling it at home?”
“And particularly if the Annapolis process does materialize, will it amount to a means for Israel to buy time and further tighten its grip on the West Bank, or will effective measures, such as a settlement freeze, be built in to neutralize the element of time while negotiators consider their options? Given the doubts that have already enveloped the Annapolis meeting, it seems unlikely to succeed where Oslo collapsed into renewed conflict. Not only are many of the structural flaws of the Oslo process still present in its anticipated Annapolis successor, but today there is the added problem that the parley’s sponsors see progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace and an escalation of inter-Palestinian conflict as indivisible objectives.”
Read the whole article here. See also my previous post on the topic, here.
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, News and politics, US | 2 Comments
Tags: "peace process", Annapolis, Saudi Arabia, Syria
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
What a useless meeting.
On one hand, we have the Israeli leader who even if he makes any concessions, will surely be kicked out of office upon his return, and on the other side, someone that doesn’t even represent the true interests of the Palestinian people, which will be attended by the great and noble Arab leaders who for the most part do nothing but take orders from Washignton.
I think this is just window-dressing by the Saudis and Americans. Anyone who takes the Saudi regime at face value and thinks that they’re interested in anyone else other than themselves needs their heads examined.