by Mark Silva
The White House's long-promised Middle East Summit will take place Tuesday in Annapolis, with President Bush pressing the leaders of Israel and the Palestine Authority to agree on principles that can pave the way toward a “two-state solution'' that Bush has long advocated.
Prospects for real progress in this summit are limited, the White House acknowledged today, conceding that there may be no “instant results'' from the conference in Anapolis. Yet, White House aides say, this will be an important juncture in the pursuit of a lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis, whom Bush has stated should accept a framework of two states living side by side.
“ What the president has wanted is what he said had wanted back in July of 2002,'' White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said today. “He's the first president to call for a two-state solution.
“He'd like to see these two parties come together to talk about the substantial and core issues surrounding the peace process so that we can begin negotiations towards that end,'' she said. “That's what we've been working towards as we get toward -- get closer to an Annapolis conference.''
Bush will hold individual meetings with Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of Israel, and Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, at the White House on Monday. Bush will play host to each leader indiviually in the Oval Office – with meetings that are likely to overshadow the pre-scheduled appearances of this year's American winners of the Nobel Prize on Monday, including former Vice President Al Gore, who narrowly lost the White House to Bush in 2000.
Olmert arrives at the White House late Monday morning, Abbas early in the afternoon, Gore and company following close behind them, the White House announced this evening.
The meeting with Gore and fellow Nobel Laureates is billed as “a photo opportunity.''
But Bush has stated that he wants the Annapolis summit of the U.S. And Middle East leaders to be much more.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has spent months preparing for this encounter with personal diplomacy in the region, though the White House, attempting to set realistic expectations for the summit, has acknowledged much “posturing'' leading to the meeting.
The White House downplays any idea that this summit is a “gamble'' on the president's part.
“It's an important initiative,'' Perino said. “The president is not a gambler. The president wants these parties to come together for the sake of peace and stability and democracy and freedom in the Middle East. He understands there's a root cause here, in that region, and he has dedicated a significant amount of time and resources and effort to bringing them together, and I think that it's well worth it.
Bush plans to attend a dinner for the Annapolis conference participants at the State Department on Monday, before heading to Annapolis on Tuesday. Bush will deliver “brief remarks'' at that dinner.
On Tuesday, the leaders will convene at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis for a one-day summit.
On Wednesday, Bush plans to follow up with individual meetings wth Olmert and Abbas at the White House.
“We recognize that at the Annapolis conference we are not going to have instant results,'' Perino said “ What you are going to have, however, we hope, is a discussion of the core issues, the substantive issues that can get the Palestinians and the Israelis to a place where they can have negotiations to get to the two-state solution that they say that they both want to get to.''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"Two-state solution", sounds like a great solution. Give the Israeli's Florida, give the Palestinians Texas. Send all the neocons over to the lands vacated by both groups and let them be a "beacon for democracy."
Posted by: dt | November 20, 2007 9:40 PM
better yet, dt, how about if we just send up all you left wing loons to Mars? Earth immediately will become a much better place. I guarantee that.
Posted by: John D | November 20, 2007 10:01 PM
“He's the first president to call for a two-state solution."
Whoop-dee, friggin', Doo!
As if this were a major accomplishment.
Everyone has long known that a two-state solution was the end game. The problem has always been getting to the end game, not just saying what the end game is.
It's taken this administration 7 years to even get involved in negotiations.
This administration has long-stated that it would not be involved in negotiations for the sake of negotiations. And, yet, here it is - in year 7 - acknowledging that this summit will likely not yield any results.
What a bunch of losers.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | November 20, 2007 10:10 PM
better yet, dt, how about if we just send up all you left wing loons to Mars? Earth immediately will become a much better place. I guarantee that.
Posted by: John D | November 20, 2007 10:01 PM
This another fine example of why no one on here takes you seriously, Johnny Meatball.
Posted by: John E | November 20, 2007 10:38 PM
Why send all of us to Mars when it would be much cheaper to send one person. Namely, you. Remember, as long as we are here on Earth everyone is expected to pitch in, and spread around the cost. Look on the bright side, though. You'll be on the right planet finally. Named after the roman god of war. If we ever run out of rust on Earth we'll know who to contact.
Posted by: The Left | November 20, 2007 10:43 PM
Aaaah...the wit and wisdom of John D. What would The Swamp be without him?... Janet?
Posted by: dt | November 20, 2007 10:46 PM
"John D", don't you mean "return" the "left wing loons" to Mars, not "send"?
The move would certainly improve the average IQ on earth.
Posted by: Bruce | November 21, 2007 12:48 AM
better yet, dt, how about if we just send up all you left wing loons to Mars? Earth immediately will become a much better place. I guarantee that.
Posted by: John D | November 20, 2007 10:01 PM
Better yet John D, let's make you Hugo Chavez's press secretary. Your certainly crazy enough.
Posted by: Little G-DUB | November 21, 2007 4:13 AM
I wouldn't pack yet John D, Condi will smile and wave at the cameras and will walk away without any deal.
Posted by: bill r. | November 21, 2007 7:04 AM
George,
Don't Serve Pork!
Posted by: kg123 | November 21, 2007 7:51 AM
Bush's attending would seem to almost guarantee the Annapolis conference's failure. He won't need an interpreter so much as someone to explain what's going on.
I wonder, will he say good night at 8:30 as is more or less this drone's habit?
In historical events of this kind, late-night intense efforts are often the important ones.
I wonder will he be wearing his little back-pack listening device, the one he wore in the campaign debates, so that someone with a brain off-stage can whisper into his ear?
Sarcasm aside, this conference has been torpedoed already. Bush weeks ago received word that he shouldn't put pressure on Olmert at this time. Several of The Lobby's spokespeople told him this, including Sen. Lieberman.
As anyone familiar with the situation in the Middle East knows to a certainty, Israel will never make any meaningful move towards a settlement in the absence of American pressure, and serious pressure.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | November 21, 2007 8:31 AM
The problem is this conference should have been held in 2001, not now. But since W has been ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian question since he has been in office, things are now worse than before.
Posted by: BobinATL | November 21, 2007 12:02 PM
"John D", don't you mean "return" the "left wing loons" to Mars, not "send"?
The move would certainly improve the average IQ on earth.
Posted by: Bruce | November 21, 2007 12:48 AM
The dumbing down of Bruce continues. Your heros have betrayed you propaganda tool. Nothing will come of this so-called summit.
You may now go back to resorting to sophomoric insults like angry old John D. Bruce your game is slipping.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | November 21, 2007 1:34 PM
Illogic Man, when it comes to sophomoric insults, i think your side has that game won -- by far.
Little Johnny D'nosepicker, Logic Dude?
Anyway, Bud, the Bush administration has been negotiating and talking to the Palestinians and Israelis practically since Day One. It's funny (in a sick way0 though, that you Loons always say "we must talk, we must negotiate, we must meet." So Bush has this powwow and you folks are having a cow over it!
Posted by: John D | November 21, 2007 2:47 PM
Well, I'm not having any cows, but this whole conference thing, this late in W's term, just REEKS of cynicism.
He doesn't give a fig for the middle east. He and Condi are busy looking for a legacy.
And can someone show me the evidence of Bush's talking to the Palestinians and Israelis since day one? I thought they only talked to oil men.
Posted by: athena | November 21, 2007 5:41 PM
He's right Logic. They been talking since day one. That's why we are in Iraq, and getting ready to go into Iran. Maybe they are talking to the wrong people.
Posted by: holes | November 21, 2007 7:11 PM
Illogic Man, when it comes to sophomoric insults, i think your side has that game won -- by far.
It's funny (in a sick way0 though, that you Loons always say "we must talk, we must negotiate, we must meet." So Bush has this powwow and you folks are having a cow over it!
Posted by: John D | November 21, 2007 2:47 PM
I rest my case defender of lost causes. The ultimate traitor is one who follows corrupt leaders blindly. Look in the mirror John.
There is no way the Palestine Authority trusts the Bush administration.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2007 7:36 PM
Bush was the first President to call Arafat what he was a terrorist. Only by ignoring him and making him a non issue has this situation finally moved ahead. Arafat became rich on his peoples blood and never wanted a solution.
Posted by: John Majane | November 22, 2007 8:25 AM
Bush was the first President to call Arafat what he was a terrorist. Only by ignoring him and making him a non issue has this situation finally moved ahead. Arafat became rich on his peoples blood and never wanted a solution.
Posted by: John Majane | November 22, 2007 8:25 AM
Funny that sounds just like George Bush. Maybe if we ignore King George he'll be marginalized too.
Posted by: Little G-DUB | November 22, 2007 3:29 PM
"Only by ignoring him and making him a non issue has this situation finally moved ahead."
Well, actually, he died soon after that, so that might have had SOMETHING to do with his irrelevance as well, no?
Posted by: DaVe | November 22, 2007 10:44 PM
go middle east peace! but legite squash the lash and get on with it....... after like 10 years could u progress any slower?
............................................................................................how.......
.................would.........................
....................................
.................you..............like...
...........................................
..................................it...
.................if........................
...........................i..................
..................................
.....................................
...........................
................talked.....................like this??????????????????????? anoying huh! so many people are dying so wats the rush, u dont know the people bing killed for your slow pace right? wrong!!!!! go israel!
anyway g2gxoxoxoxo
mwa mwa kisses!
Posted by: Tempest | November 28, 2007 10:35 PM