Yesterday, Miret and I contributed to a story out of Jerusalem on the lack of optimism on the eve of the Annapolis conference, the U.S.-sponsored peace talks that take place today. We translated newspaper articles and Jazeera broadcasts, made a few phone calls and then we were finished.
The phone rang. An American-educated friend who works at the Egyptian agriculture ministry was on the line, asking what we were covering these days. I told him we were doing a reaction piece about Annapolis. I jokingly "interviewed" him about his thoughts on the conference.
"It sucks!" he said. "Write that down, I'm serious. You put that in and you're going to be representing a whole lot of people."
But why, you might ask. Who on earth would be against a chance for peace and, finally, an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
It's complicated here. Many Arabs see this as Bush trying to accomplish something big before he leaves office, they see it as Western powers forcing Arab states to normalize relations with Israel without getting Arab demands met in return, they see the double standard in the West's embracing of Fatah and shunning of the democratically elected Hamas movement, they doubt that perennial dealbreakers such as what to do with Jerusalem or Palestinian refugees will be resolved in a one-day conference. Mostly, however, they just seem sick and tired of this neverending war that's been the backdrop to so many other Middle Eastern crises and conflicts. They've gotten excited about conferences before, only to have their hopes dashed when leaders fly home empty-handed.
Here's a potpourri of excerpts from regional newspapers and government media agencies that show the range of expectations for the Annapolis talks:
"(The host is) Bush, who is stuck in Iraq, embarrassed inside and outside (his nation), who is forced to make a grand theatrical gesture that saves his international standing and gives him the honor of being the seeker of peace in the world, and saves face for the United States after a series of failures. The 'international summit' dwarfed with time into a mere get-together."
Erfan Nizam al Din, al Hayat Newspaper
"It is vital here to state to all parties that the danger in the Annapolis conference lies in raising the level of expectation and not anticipating what should happen after, particularly if the conference is unable to achieve concrete results -- and that is what we truly fear the most."
Tariq Alhomayed, editor-in-chief of Al Sharq al Awsat newspaper
"Vigilance of the Palestinian nation, which is tied to that of the Muslim Ummah, especially the great Iranian nation, will prevent materialization of the sinister objectives of the U.S. administration holding the conference."
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, IRNA, Iranian state news agency
"Those attending the meeting and giving concessions to the Zionist occupiers will not be remembered in history with good reputation."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, IRNA news agency
"The Annapolis conference is of no use, and any decisions taken at the conference are not binding on the Palestinian people, but only binding on those who signed them."
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, al Jazeera television
"After the conference's three days pass, we will not find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but we'll find a new round of political and diplomatic clashes, and this round can go on like previous rounds without reaching a solution."
Abdel Moneim Saied of a Cairo-based research center, Ahram newspaper
"Syria will participate in the conference without any illusions of what will take place, and out of a conviction that Israel doesn't want peace, and that it's the one responsible for stalling the peace process. Syria's participation in this conference is to test the seriousness of the American administration to work for peace this time."
Ezzeldin Darwish, the Syrian newspaper Teshreen
"It's an important step. I cannot say it's a breakthrough, especially when I don't know yet what will come out of it, but we need to give it a chance."
Hossam Zaki, Egyptian foreign ministry spokesman, interview
After all that is said and done in Iraq, will the new government recognize Israel's right to exist and did they have any representative at Annapolis?
Posted by: Bill Melendez | November 28, 2007 at 08:37 PM
The term 'Israel's Right to Exist' is a tricky term. The problem comes from the way Israel was created by outside forces and displaced the indigenous people that were living already in that geographical area. To accept 'Israel's Right to Exist' would be to put a seal of approval on what happened negating the injustice done to the indigenous (or Palestinian) population there.
Most parties in the region acknowledge Israel exists and has the right to exist with security and peace as the Palestinian people also have the right to exist in peace and security.
The Arab Peace Initiative adopted by Israel's neighbors at the Beirut Summit of 2002 offers full normalization of economic and political relations with Israel in return for Israel implementing international laws already on the books.
Israel could have full normalization of relations with it's neighbors (Iraq would probably fall into line with it's fellow Arab neighbors) by agreeing to the Saudi sponsored peace initiative - recognizing Israel as a fellow nation in the region and participating in full economic and political exchanges.
Posted by: Edie | November 29, 2007 at 04:41 PM