by Mark Silva
Israeli and Palestinian leaders are expected to announce their intentions to open direct negotiations leading toward the potential creation of an independent Palestinian state and peace with Israel at a Middle East summit that President Bush will host in Annapolis, Md., this week, the White House said today.
“This is not a negotiating session. It is to launch negotiations,’’ Stephen Hadley, the president’s national security adviser, said of the Annapolis conference and meetings planned at the White House. “This is an opportunity… to showcase what is an opportunity to move into a negotiating phase between the Israelis and Palestinians.
“It will be an opportunity for the parties to indicate their intentions… and for the international community to show their support,’’ Hadley said in a conference call with reporters today. “What specifically is liable to come… from this meeting… First, the indication from the Palestinian and Israeli delegations that it is their intent to begin negotiations… These are negotiations that will follow the international meeting.’’
This includes a “parallel’’ commitment of stating their intentions to carry out elements of a “roadmap’’ to peace that includes contributions from both sides: For the Israelis, withdrawing from occupied territories, and for the Palestinians, ensuring greater security for both their own people and Israelis.
As optimistic as the Bush administration appears about the opening of negotiations following the Annapolis conference, however, chances of obtaining a final peace remain elusive. The Israelis and Palestinians remain divided over many issues, not the least of which is control of the Gaza Strip by the militant Hamas organization while the moderate Palestinian Authority controls the West Bank.
Yet both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are voicing their own goals of reaching some peace agreement by the end of next year, according to Hadley – acknowledging that this is not “a formal timetable.’’ And the president also will state his commitment to focusing on the challenge during his final year as president.
"This conference will signal international support for the Israelis' and Palestinians' intention to commence negotiations on the establishment of a Palestinian state and the realization of peace between these two peoples," Bush said in a statement issued today.
"I remain personally committed to implementing my vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security," the president said. "The Israelis and Palestinians have waited a long time for this vision to be realized, and I call upon all those gathering in Annapolis this week to redouble their efforts to turn dreams of peace into reality."
Hadley calls the conference an opportunity for leaders to commit to negotiations and cooperation that could lead to "a comprehensive peace.''
“I think you will hear from it a commitment by the two parties, the Israelis and Palestinians, to carry out the roadmap, so you will have a situation where negotiations will go forward, but at the same time the parties will be implementing their obligations under the roadmap,’’ Hadley said. “There will be an indication that the parties have asked the United States to be the raconteur for that progress under the roadmap, to be a witness and in some cases to facilitate.’’
Bush, who will provide “a vision’’ of the path to peace in the Middle East at the conference, is not likely to spell out any details at this time. He will play host to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and then Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on Monday, in advance of the summit in Annapolis drawing leaders from Arab nations as well.
Syria announced today that it also will send a delegation to Annapolis.
The meeting at the U.S. Naval Academy on Tuesday will open with a three-way session for Bush, Olmert and Abbas before they head into the larger meeting, address it and then conduct an afternoon session of discussions with other nations attending.
Bush is the latest in a line of American presidents to press for peace in the Middle East – albeit late in his term, just as former President Bill Clinton made a late-term attempt at brokering an agreement. But, with the exception of former President Jimmy Carter, who staged talks at Camp David in 1978 that led to a peace treaty the following year between Israel and Egypt, peacemaking has eluded the American presidents who have attempted it.
This week’s conference, which Bush first proposed in July, is aimed at providing a base for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, which have been suspended for seven years. Bush’s own goal, which he has stated for several years, is “a two-state solution,’’ with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in autonomous states.
The meeting should serve as a prelude to “parallel steps,’’ Hadley said today. The first is the commitment to begin direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The second is the two parties’ implementation of the roadmap to peace.
Bush also will be making it clear that he intends to focus effort in the remaining year of his term on achieving a “comprehensive peace’’ that has long eluded the Middle East.
“I think what you can expect from the president is to convene this issue… he is after all the host,’’ Hadley said. “He will make very clear that this effort has his support and is a top priority for the remaining time in his second term… and he is paying close attention to this process… I think you can expect that he will indicate what it is that Israelis, Palestinians, the international community and the United States need to do, and can do, to bring this to fruition.
“He will offer a bit of a vision of what we have an opportunity to achieve at this time - how it can contribute to a broader stability in the Middle East… and why we think the time is actually right for making this effort.
“The notion of trying to do it by next year, by the end of 2008 is an idea that the parties have’’ articulated, Hadley said today. “While this is not a formal timetable, it is something where both Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas have both talked about an aspiration to try to make this happen before President Bush leaves office. ‘’
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Israeli and Palestinian leaders are expected to announce their intentions to open direct negotiations leading toward the potential creation of an independent Palestinian state and peace with Israel at a Middle East summit that President Bush will host in Annapolis, Md., this week, the White House said today.
- M Silva
Here's how I read that opening statement, with emphasis on all words in qutoes:
Israeli and Palestinian "leaders" are "expected" to announce their "intentions" to open direct negotiations leading toward the "potential" creation of an independent Palestinian state and peace with Israel at a Middle East summit that President Bush will host in Annapolis, Md., this week, the White House said today.
This is so full of wishful thinking, it's like a well with millions of coins.
Let's take it step-by-step.
Who really are the "leaders" on both sides? The Israelis and U.S. won't even negotiate with Hamas.
What does it mean to "expect"? Does that mean they will or that they had better?
"Intentions" are nice, but how about something more "concrete."
"Potential"? The state of Palestine would have been a reality long ago had it not been for Western powers and Arab greed.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | November 25, 2007 4:17 PM
Bud, as a typical far leftie, is unsatisfied. Course, he wants talks with Hamas, a terrorist group.
I don't think anyone is expecting miracles, but it's a start. In reality, presidents for 30+ years have tried to get peace agreements in this area, with little or no success, or the very rare success.
But we try and we'll try again.
Posted by: John D | November 25, 2007 6:33 PM
And just who needs the ME talks? Not even the Palestinians want a state, read here http://samsonblinded.org/blog/independence-means-obligations.htm
Posted by: Ann | November 25, 2007 6:43 PM
John D,
"I was wrong. Clinton did exactly the right thing in talking to the Provisional IRA and other extremist elements. Now they have to do the same, in my opinion, with Hamas, and they have to do the same with Al Qaeda. You have to involve them in dialogue."
--Bono
How is what you are saying, what Silva is saying, and what Bud is saying different about the Summit?
Bud,
I'm more or less along what you put on the table. It's about both siting down, putting it all out the table, AND committing to recognizing each other. The problem is that that entails lands. We all know that that is as pretty as people sitting down to divide the inheritance without a will. I do hope it works out, but from how the summit is presented it does seem like it will be nothing but altruism and no commitment. Something like the g8. The first cut is the deepest, and you are guaranteed to bleed. I do think that once it's over everyone--including the new generation--will finally be able to move on.
Posted by: hahahah | November 25, 2007 8:02 PM
This is really sad. They are going to agree to enter into negotiations? They are supposed to be there to seriously negotiate and like it or not Hamas is a player. Hamas won a significant election victory in a very supervised and fair election in the eyes of the world and then after pushing that election we repudiated it because we did not like who won. If we want fair elections we need to honor the choice of the electorate---can't have both ways
Posted by: Frank | November 25, 2007 11:50 PM
“This is an opportunity… to showcase what is an opportunity to move into a negotiating phase between the Israelis and Palestinians."
With condi Rice and GW Bush at the helm it's a non-starter. 2008 can't get here soon enough for me. Vote the republican bums out!
Posted by: Beatle Bomb | November 26, 2007 2:39 AM
Oh swell, just what everyone needs, more talks.
What a remarkable conference goal.
Of course, what it really says is this conference is a dead man walking.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | November 26, 2007 7:40 AM
John D.,
I have no problem with your characterization of me, but whether you call someone a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter," the point is you have to deal with the real leadership - not just the people with whom you can share a joke.
To continue to pretend Hamas does not exist (because Hamas says you don't exist) doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Or, wait, maybe it does. As you pointed out, it gets everyone 30 years down the road to the same old negotiations table.
It's time for all parties to stop acting like babies and start acting like grown-ups. Call me a "lefty," fine. If that soothes you, great. But deal with the realities on the ground, not some fantasies.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | November 26, 2007 11:27 AM
I am not optimistic about the so-called "refugee" problem being solved, and I think that is the biggest impediment to any solution. The Arab states who keep descendants of Palestinians, who were ousted or fled Israel, festering in camps will obstruct any talk of a two state solution until this issue is resolved. As for talking to Hamas, you might as well try to negotiate with a dog. They have already proven they are unwilling to compromise and are committed to Israel's destruction. Until Hamas changes their charter to recognize Israel's right to exist, it would be silly to invite them to a negotiation on a two-state solution; not that they would come anyway.
Posted by: Herbie H. | November 26, 2007 1:23 PM
What can I say my answer is going too be short. If you look West of Israel look at the Sinai. I think there be a deal in most of the West bank soon. But not Gaza I be willing too bet in fact in the next five years the Sinai being the next problem!
Posted by: Ian Rosmarin | November 26, 2007 1:31 PM
Annapolis is already a dead man walking.
First, it has a goal of leading to talks. Does anyone believe talks alone can do anything?
We've had talks, off and on, for fifty years. 'Peace process' with no peace, much like an 'edicational process' with no education.
Second, Bush has already been told not to pressure Olmert at this time.
The fact is no change worth talking about will happen without American pressure on Israel. Israel initiates nothing in these matters, and hasn't done so for half a century.
Third, a major party is not even included. Imagine a peace conference without one of the warring parties?
Ridiculous.
No matter what you think of Hamas, they represent a large part of the population, and they were elected in elections far cleaner than those that put Bush into office.
Israel's very refusal ever to even talk to Hamas tells you something very important.
Hamas for years in the past was secretly subsidized by Israel's secret services - who would hardly support anyone who was a genuine threat - hoping it would eventually form a bloody division with Arafat.
That's just what has happened, and Israel's leaders I am sure are pleased behind the scenes with the state of affairs. They get to treat an elected government as a pariah and do all kinds of high-handed actions such as holding back Palestinian funds with limited criticism.
Why should they change?
The real point of all Israel's policies for five decades has been to make the Palestinians so miserable, they'll go away.
Israel has no incentive, being subsidized to the tune of 500 dollars per citizen per year by America, to change. Only American pressure would do anything.
Of course, a fourth reason is that America is i an election cycle, and no candidate of either party can afford to be seen being tough on Israel.
Hopeless, absolutely hopeless.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | November 26, 2007 2:47 PM
Here's a sample of the skeptical reaction of conservatives to Annapolis:
"The thug Assad regime of Syria will apparently take a couple of days off from murdering Lebanese democrats and enabling the anti-American jihad in Iraq to attend this week’s Annapolis summit … or “conference,” or “meeting.” It’s difficult to say how we should describe Condoleezza Rice’s pie-in-the-sky confab. After all, the main principals — an Israeli prime minister hanging on by a thread and a Palestinian “president” whose only constituency seems to be the U.S. State Department — cannot even agree on what to call it, much less on an agenda.
I’m going with “farce.”
(from NRO online)
Posted by: Bruce | November 26, 2007 5:59 PM