HAMAS’ call on Arab countries to boycott next month’s Middle East summit raises more question marks over the conference’s success, for if the Palestinians, as divided as they are, cannot agree among themselves on the best course of action toward a resolution, then the prospects of reaching a common conceptual framework for any prospective peace agreement with Israel dims considerably.
The Hamas boycott call expressly means they are opposed to the conference and will reject any of its outcomes — not a very good start even before the meeting begins. Israel and the US are not overly concerned by the Hamas stand; in fact, Hamas’ absence would be welcome considering that the US designated it a terrorist organization and Gaza, the piece of land it rules, enemy territory. It is clear that the US and Israel want to isolate Hamas, but there should not be any preconditions on excluding them as legitimate representatives of the Palestinians. Many Palestinians subscribe to the political perspective of Hamas, and the world cannot exclude Hamas and their considerable constituency of sympathizers among Palestinians. Hamas should be there, to participate in the deliberations, to object when necessary, to express their viewpoint — which is that of many Palestinians — and to at least be part of the process rather than its failure if that’s the way it ends up.
The conference already faces huge obstacles. While Mahmoud Abbas and his aides insist that any peace agreement with Israel must include the creation of a Palestinian state on 100 percent of the West Bank, Ehud Olmert is insisting that the guidelines for a declaration of principles must include George Bush’s letter of guarantees to Ariel Sharon in 2004 as well as the road map. Bush pledged that in the context of a final-status peace agreement with the Palestinians Israel would have the right to retain major Jewish population concentrations in the West Bank, a clear reference to Jewish settlements built on occupied Arab land. That pledge is incompatible with international law and underscores Washington’s bias toward Israel.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due to visit the region next week to add her weight to the preparations but the upcoming conference lacks the preparatory groundwork necessary for success, vindicating reservations voiced recently in the Middle East, particularly by Saudi and Egyptian leaders. The Israelis are hoping for a broad declaration of principles, without committing to a timetable for final-status talks. However, Palestinian officials want a framework and possibly a timetable for making decisions on some of the most sensitive issues in the conflict, including the final borders of a Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees. A declaration of principles is nonbinding, general and vague. It would specifically suit Olmert who simply does not want to commit himself to anything concrete with regard to ending the occupation.
However, a boycott is not the answer. All Arab parties concerned are urged to go and do their best, so that if the talks fall short, the blame is put squarely elsewhere.
