IT is easy to be guarded, if not indeed downright pessimistic, about the renewed Palestinian-Israeli peace talks that emerged from the Annapolis summit. However, before dealing with the realities that underpin all the reservations, it must be recognized that justice for the Palestinians is only ever going to come through negotiations. Therefore, the mere restart of the process after seven miserable years has to be welcomed.
This said, the hurdles that must be crossed even before the two sides settle down to substantive matters appear daunting. An Israeli freeze on new settlements is again linked to the Palestinian government’s control of security and halt to attacks against Israel. The fact is that as long as the injustices and oppression associated with occupation continue, there will be any number of people with enough resentment and enough grievances prepared to make things difficult for Israel and a Palestinian administration seen too accommodating of Israel or unable to effect changes in Israeli policies. Will the Israelis not use Abbas’ inability to deliver security control over West Bank to shelve the settlements freeze commitment and continue to build up the “facts on the ground”?
And what of Hamas, the abandonment of whose democratically elected government was forced on the Palestinians? Their political success reflected the majority public mood that a reasonable Palestinian approach was getting nowhere. Hamas was prepared to trade recognition of Israeli as part of substantive negotiations. Now the Israelis are demanding recognition before the key issues are argued. Which borders are Hamas being told to accept?
Where was the carrot at Annapolis that was supposed to help bring Hamas back into the political process? As long as it is excluded or allows itself to be excluded, everything Abbas’ negotiators will talk about with their Israeli counterparts will be largely meaningless. The Israelis meanwhile will use the stalemate to continue their West Bank colonization, confident that this in itself will constitute a new flashpoint and excuse to resile from their peace commitments, if ever the Palestinians again start talking with one voice.
Israel used to complain that it had no reliable peace partner. If it showed nothing else, Annapolis demonstrated that it now has the 22 member states of the Arab League as peace partners. All are ready to build on political foundations, not least those laid for rival Fatah and Hamas factions at Makkah, to foster the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Palestinian militancy exists because of Israeli occupation and colonization. It will end when that occupation is seen to be ending and a just deal placed on the table.
George Bush in setting a timetable running to the end of his final year in office is doubtless seeking one achievement for his disastrous presidency. Will he finally pressure Israel to act reasonably? Bush’s past actions and policies are not very reassuring. It is therefore easy to be cynical about Annapolis but cynicism never brought peace. Only hope does.
