Those of us world-weary journalists who have been reporting or commenting on the Palestine conflict all these years, cynical folks imbued with a kind of postmodernist dogma of skepticism, are to be forgiven these days for their dismissal of the phrase “peace process” as an oxymoron.

No one, of course, should put down President Bush’s initiative in the port city of Aqaba, Jordan. Lest we forget, this is a summit with modest goals that for now merely seeks an agreement between the two leaders on “responsibilities rather than a commitment to specific actions.”

The road map, a multistage plan that envisions, by the year 2005, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza — that roughly 20 percent remnant of the Palestinian people’s historic patrimony left them after 1948 — is commendable only to the extent that, given their place in the balance of power at this time in history, Palestinians could not aspire for any more national rights to accrue them than those outlined there. That is why they have wisely and readily embraced it. The problem, however, is with how the current Israeli government views the plan, to which it has already raised 14 objections, including objections to a freeze on the building of new settlements and the expansion of already existing ones on expropriated Palestinian land in the occupied territories.

There is also the absurd objection — that goes beyond mere semantics — to the cease-fire agreed to, or about to be agreed to, by Palestinian militant groups that, since September 2000, have spearheaded the uprising against Israeli occupation. Sharon is on record as saying that a cease-fire is not good enough — he wants the Palestinian Authority to “crack down” on these groups, arresting, incarcerating and ideally wiping out their cadres and leaders, that is, a Palestinian civil war.

Sharon is backed in this position by the White House, whose press secretary, Ari Fleischer, told reporters last week that indeed a cease-fire would not be sufficient. “Should the Palestinians declare a cease-fire,” he told reporters, “it must be accompanied by parallel steps to disarm and dismantle terrorists and terrorist infrastructure.”

Sure, the summit with Sharon and Abbas represents Bush’s most direct involvement in the Middle East “peace process” since he took office in 2001, an involvement that — given the armlock that pro-Israeli pressure groups have had on America’s foreign policy in the region — has eluded other American presidents for decades, most recently President Bill Clinton, who had traveled to the Middle East six times and presided over four Middle East summits.

But in the end the issue is this: Will Bush have the spine to stand up to Sharon and tell him, up front, that this road map, as it stands, without modifications, is the only road map to peace, supported not only by Washington but also by the international community? Or will the meeting in Aqaba be a mere photo-op?

Having pictures taken of American, Palestinian and Israeli leaders smiling at the cameras is all fine and dandy, but it is no substitute for concrete action on the ground. Pictures are in the end a superficial surface reflection of an event or a figure, not the real thing. Consider how much stock we now put in the picture of that famous handshake on the White House lawn in Sept. 1993. Or more to the point, recall Daniel J. Boorstin’s pithy observation, in his seminal work, “The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America,” about the proud mother, pushing a stroller, who tells a woman stopping to admire the baby in it: “Oh, that’s nothing, you should see his photograph.”

Sorry, this cynical commentator, who files from Washington and knows of the limits placed on an American president’s ability to make demands on Israel in the rump to an election year, is not all that optimistic about the terminus of the road map.

Recently, Jim Holocomb, a fellow journalist who had filed in the past from several Arab capitals, tried to convince me, well into the night, that “some little thing, some positive little thing, may come out of all this summiteering.”

I wouldn’t go that far, Jim.

- Arab News Opinion 5 June 2003