Backlash: Annapolis could mark the beginning of the end for Mahmoud Abbas

The PA has come under increasing scrutiny in the aftermath of Annapolis, notes Khaled Amayreh
---

Just back from Annapolis, and with no tangible achievements to present to, let alone impress, a people long disillusioned with American-sponsored "peace conferences", Palestinian Authority (PA) officials have been trying desperately to convince the Palestinians that "this time it is going to be serious."

Former but still influential negotiator Saeb Ereikat has described upcoming negotiations with Israel as "a real battle" with the same ferocity of a military confrontation and with similar tactics, except that it is fought at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield.

More
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/874/re61.htm

While the world watched the Arabs, Annapolis was for Israel and the US to prepare the ground for attacking Iran, writes Saleh Al-Naami
---

At 8.45 last Wednesday morning, when most of the Arab delegation members to the Annapolis meeting were still in their hotel rooms, American President George W Bush met alone with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Bush's White House office. According to most commentators in Israel, this very early meeting was the most important event related to the Annapolis meeting because it was entirely devoted to discussing Iran's nuclear programme. Spokespersons for Olmert have affirmed that the meeting addressed means of coordination between the two allies to confront Iranian nuclear activities. Although both parties have kept quiet on the outcome of the meeting, Israeli sources have indicated that it was devoted to answering the follow question: To what degree can bets be placed on economic sanctions thwarting Iranian nuclear ambitions, and if the answer indicates an insufficient likelihood of success, what kind of military mobilisation can meet this goal? This important meeting suggested to many that Israeli and American enthusiasm for the Annapolis meeting was essentially because it provided an opportunity for Israel and the United States to address the Iranian issue.

More
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/874/re62.htm

Though Israel must be gleeful following the Annapolis debacle, theatrics won't change the nature or resolve of the ground struggle for Palestinian national liberation, writes Mustafa Al-Barghouti
---

With all due respect to all the speeches that were delivered in Annapolis, the only document that emerged from that meeting was the "Joint Understanding" between Israel and the Palestinian delegation. In this one-page, vague and loosely worded text another document was mentioned six times: the "roadmap".

This is the same roadmap that ran against the stumbling block for four years because it exacts upon the Palestinians an unfeasible task, which is to provide security and protection to their occupiers. Israel is the fourth largest arms exporter in the world. It has the most powerful military force in the region, a nuclear arsenal larger than that of France, and an air force stronger than the UK's. Such is the might of the occupying power that the governing authority of a people oppressed by that power's occupation is being told to protect, even though that authority does not possess the means to protect its own people. Surely this is a historical precedent.

Israel thus emerged as the greatest victor from Annapolis. It achieved everything it wanted with the least possible losses, while the Palestinian delegation backed down on every one of its pledges. There was no mention of freezing Israeli settlement expansion, of halting construction of the separation/apartheid wall, of the question of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees and borders. There was some vague reference to "core issues", without specifying what these are. There was no reference whatsoever, not even for the sake of nicety, to the cruel embargo against Gaza or, more importantly, to ending the occupation of the territories Israel seized in 1967.

More
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/874/op11.htm

Despite the preceding furore, Annapolis offered nothing to inspire hope, writes James Zogby*
---

ParliamenThe Annapolis conference turned out to be much less than the "historic breakthrough" hyped by official briefers and dutifully (or naïvely) echoed in the mainstream media. In fact, Annapolis was only historic if one ignores the Madrid conference of 1992. Or if one discounts the significance of the Israeli- Palestinian accords signed in Oslo, Cairo, Paris, Washington and Wye River; or the major post-Oslo economic summits in Casablanca and Amman; or even George Bush's own multi-nation gathering at Sharm El-Sheikh.

In other words, Annapolis was only historic if one either disregards history or discounts its importance.

Seen in this larger context, Annapolis, at best, represented a rather sad and pale reminder of what was, what might have been, what was lost, and several steps back from where the peace process was seven years ago. One wants to be hopeful and supportive of every effort to end this horrible conflict, securing for the Palestinians their long- denied rights. Given what transpired in the lead-up to Annapolis and at the conference itself, however, it's hard to be optimistic.

In the six months since the Bush administration announced the conference, too little preparation left the meeting, its agenda and goals in limbo until the final day. And despite US assurances to Arab participants that Israel would make significant confidence- building gestures towards the Palestinians before the conference, these did not occur.

Scrutinising the joint statement issued by the parties at Annapolis, and examining in close detail statements issued by President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, there is little indication of any real movement towards a positive outcome. The goals set in the joint statement were too vague and limited, and the rhetoric used by the two leaders reflected old and failed hardline policies that have fed the stalemate for the last seven years.

More
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/874/op12.htm

It's not that Israel's borders are porous. They don't exist at all, writes Galal Nassar
---

Perhaps seeking to distract attention from the crisis facing his government, or hoping to exploit the weakness of the Arab regional system, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is asking the Arabs to recognise Israel. Unfortunately, such a move may be a prelude to ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

Zionist ideas are a mixture of racism that exists in symbiotic relation with Western imperialism -- something made clear in Theodore Hertzl's book The Jewish State. Hertzl ignored the fact that Palestine was already inhabited by a people with an extensive history, something he sees as a minor hurdle. "Supposing, for example, we were obliged to clear a country of wild beasts, we would not set about the task in the fashion of Europeans of the fifth century. We would not take spear and lance and go out singly in pursuit of bears; we would organise a large and active hunting party, drive the animals together, and throw a melinite bomb into their midst," he writes. It was on the basis of such formulations that the Basel Conference endorsed Zionism as its strategy in 1897.

In 1911, notes historian Walter Laqueur, Zionist leaders were wondering if they could persuade Palestinian Arabs to settle in neighbouring Arab countries, buying land with the money they get for selling their land in Palestine. The Zionists actually thought of buying land to settle Palestinians outside the country. And yet when Balfour issued his declaration in 1917, the number of Zionists did not exceed 45.8 per cent of Palestine's inhabitants.

More
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/874/op13.htm