The Pastor’s Blog: April 2008
Annapolis: Optimism vs. Pessimism
First published in Sojourners Magazine
“Do you know the definition of a pessimist?” asks Afif Safieh, head of the PLO Delegation to the USA. He answers with a bitter smile: “an optimist with information.” In an interview with Akiva Eldar published in Ha`aretz back in September 2007, Safieh said, “My message to the American society as a Palestinian diplomat is not `give up a friend` but `add a friend.` I don`t have a problem with the commitment to Israel`s existence; I`m just asking my American friends if you are also committed to Israel`s territorial expansion? Do your interests include the Israeli occupation in the territories? For this is it worth it for you to fight with the entire Arab world?”
There are grounds for both optimism and pessimism arising from the Annapolis Conference. What is in no doubt is the price of failure. In a letter written to George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the Annapolis conference, a group of foreign policy advisors headed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee H. Hamilton, Henry Siegman, Brent Scowcroft, Paul Volcker and other former Washington officials, spelt out how “Failure Risks Devastating Consequences”. They saw Annapolis as “a genuine opportunity for progress toward a two-state solution. The Middle East remains mired in its worst crisis in years, and a positive outcome of the conference could play a critical role in stemming the rising tide of instability and violence. Because failure risks devastating consequences in the region and beyond, it is critically important that the conference succeed.”
If we need no convincing over what is at stake, what are the issues that will determine whether Annapolis is going to herald a breakthrough or turn out to have been a breaking point?
Annapolis: An optimistic view
After a hiatus of seven years Annapolis has the potential to change the map
of the Middle East peacefully, bring security to Israel and sovereignty to
Palestine. Annapolis was intended to revive the “Road-Map” process originally
announced in 2002 which called for a viable and independent Palestinian state
alongside Israel. The “Joint Understanding” published at the end of the conference
by George W. Bush, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority and
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, stated:
“We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis. In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements.”
The agreement by Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert to meet every two weeks to continue their high-level diplomacy can only be progress. In taking sole responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of progress made by both parties, a role previously assumed by the Quartet (The US, Europe, Russia and UN), George W. Bush has staked not only his own reputation but that of the United States on a peace deal. According to the New York Times, George W. Bush insisted, unequivocally, “We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation – a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security. So, in welcoming Ehud Olmert, George W. Bush, insisted “I’m optimistic, I know you’re optimistic, and I want to thank you for your courage and your friendship.” If both George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert are optimistic, what grounds are there for pessimism?
Annapolis: A pessimistic view
Writing in the Guardian newspaper under the heading “All we need is
a miracle”, Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British
Understanding, insisted “the Holy Land will be needing yet another miracle if
the US is to broker a peaceful end to a 60-year-old conflict within just 12
months.”
As Stephen Zunes points out, while both sides have an equal right to peace and security, “there is a grossly unequal balance of power between the occupied Palestinians and the occupying Israelis.” As long as the US follows a unilateral approach and ignores or hinders the work of the United Nations, there is little hope of Annapolis achieving anything more than another photo opportunity for George W. Bush. Stephen Zunes continues:
“UN Security Council resolutions 446, 452, 465, and 471 explicitly call on Israel to remove its colonists from the occupied territories. However, both the Bush administration and an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress have gone on record that Israel should not be required to withdraw from the majority of these settlements… Any Palestinian state remaining would effectively be comparable to the notorious Bantustans of South Africa prior to majority rule.”
Only when the US administration begins to recognise that Palestinian rights and Israeli security are interdependent and not mutually exclusive will there be any hope of Annapolis being associated with anything positive in the Middle East.
Annapolis: The key questions
Seven questions remain unanswered since Annapolis. The answers will
determine whether the optimists or the pessimists are proved right.
1. What constitutes a viable, independent, contiguous, sovereign Palestinian State? The June 4 1967 borders between Israel and Palestine are the only ones recognised in international law. Any minor modifications to this line must be agreed by mutual consent.
2. What will be the status of Jerusalem? Both Israelis and Palestinians regard it as their capital. The unilateral Israeli annexation of much of East Jerusalem must be revoked.
3. Will the US continue to fund Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine? Israel’s burgeoning settlements, exclusive Israeli-only roads, hundreds of military checkpoints and above all, Separation Wall are only sustainable with US sponsorship. Will the US continue to veto UN Security Council Resolutions critical of Israel or work with the UN to help Israel live up to her international and legal obligations?
4. Does the US Administration recognise that an Israeli withdrawal from the Syrian Golan is not only essential to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement but also wider regional stability? Until now the US has forbidden Israel from taking up any of the numerous offers from Syria to negotiate.
5. What about the status of Palestinian refugees? An answer must be found that is consistent with international law and the two-state solution. Meaningful financial compensation must be provided for those unable to return to their homes and lands.
6. What about Hamas? Will the US respect the democratic choice of the Palestinian people and encourage a national consensus between Fatah and Hamas?
7. Does George W. Bush still believe he can take on Iran without first achieving a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians? War with Iran will well and truly bury any chance of a regional peace deal for years if not decades.
Time is running out for both sides. A failure to seize this opportunity for peace will not only lead to yet more years of conflict and radicalisation but will probably mark the end of the two-state solution. Henry Siegman summarises the costs of failure:
“The importance of reaching such an agreement now rather than in the future should be self-evident. For if Annapolis fails, the likelihood that Israel will again have a moderate Palestinian interlocutor is close to zero. Not only the prospect of a moderate Palestinian leadership but also the commitment of all Arab countries to normalizing relations with Israel following a peace agreement will be casualties… the growing skepticism in US policy circles about Israel's real intentions in the territories, as suggested by the letter to Bush and Rice by this country's most eminent elder statesmen and stateswomen, is bound to change what has been the reflexive US support that Israel has been able to count on until now, particularly during the past two administrations… Annapolis may well be a historic watershed—the last opportunity to salvage not only a two-state solution but a Jewish state that remains a democracy.”
If recent history is any guide to the likelihood of a peace deal being achieved within the next 12 months as George W. Bush hopes, then it is wise to be sceptical of any positive outcome to Annapolis. However, Canon Naim Ateek, a Palestinian and director of the Sabeel Liberation Theology Centre, Jerusalem, offers a more long-term perspective:
“Ultimately, peace will come not from the Caesars and all those who trust in their military might and in the arrogance of their power but from the meek that put their trust in God. It is the meek who will inherit the earth. Peace will come from the labor, toil, and hard work of all those who do not glory in their riches or in their power but glory in their love and service of God and in their love and acceptance of others. God’s message of peace still rings true, not from Annapolis that represents empire, but from the small town of Bethlehem, Palestine that still suffers under occupation. The peace that the Caesars of the world give is largely false and deceptive, and it cannot last. Only the peace that God gives, the peace that is based on justice and truth will survive and prosper.”
On balance, that must make me a temporal pessimist but an eternal optimist.
Stephen Sizer