Deemed "worthwhile", nothing came out of the latest meeting on Middle East peace in Sharm El-Sheikh, Dina Ezzat reports The scene of the joint press briefing that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas held with Israeli Foreign Minister and Acting Prime Minister Tzipi Livni in Sharm El-Sheikh Sunday was very peculiar. Taking a friendly posture as he stood side by side with Livni, Abbas spoke in the name of both about the commitment they have to maintaining the process of final status negotiations despite the fact that the current Israeli government is not in any position to conclude agreements and that political transition in the White House does not encourage the conclusion of final deals. "We affirmed that we are continuing with these negotiations and that we will not interrupt them," Abbas said. Livni was nodding cautiously as she was listening to the translation of Abbas's statement, in English, whispered in her ears by chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erikat. She, too, spoke to affirm the continuation of negotiations launched last year in Annapolis under the auspices of now outgoing US President George W Bush. The Annapolis process, she said, "serves the interest of both sides, the Israeli and the Palestinian". Abbas and Livni were both in Sharm El-Sheikh to take part in an international meeting on Middle East peace. Both briefed the International Quartet (the US, EU, Russia and UN) that met in the Red Sea resort, at the ministerial level, on the outcome of 12 months of regular but inconclusive negotiations. Neither Abbas nor Livni made any reference to a potential deadline for the conclusion of their talks. Nor did any of the participants of the Quartet meeting make any reference to a timeline for -- or target date of -- the conclusion of final status talks. They merely supported "the need for continuous and uninterrupted bilateral negotiations". The Annapolis process, according to the promise of US President Bush, was supposed to lead to the conclusion of a final status agreement and the establishment of a Palestinian state before the end of 2008. "It is very clear that nothing is going to happen before the end of this year," said Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit in a press conference that he held after the Quartet meeting that he hosted. On the eve of the Quartet meeting, the top Egyptian diplomat had suggested that the meeting would secure two objectives. First, to ensure that members of the Quartet took note of "the progress" achieved during negotiations, "to make sure that the efforts of the past year do not go down the drain". Second, to reach a collective understanding among concerned regional and international players of the basis upon which the Barack Obama administration could launch its intervention in the Middle East peace process when ready to do so -- hopefully during the first year of Obama's term. "The meeting is meant to draw a framework for any future diplomatic efforts that aim to give a push to the peace process," Abul-Gheit said. It was US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who suggested to Abul-Gheit the Quartet meeting with Abbas and Livni. Egypt agreed to host the meeting in the hope that it would produce "a peace document" that takes note of whatever was achieved during the last year's negotiations that deal with thorny final status issues including the fate of East Jerusalem and of Palestinian refugees. Israel, according to reliable Middle East diplomatic sources, vetoed the idea of a document. At the end of its meeting on Sunday, the Quartet issued a statement of two and a half pages that supported the continuation of negotiations. Read out by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon at a press conference Sunday afternoon, the Quartet statement reiterated promises to pursue securing a peace deal that could allow for the creation of a Palestinian state. Beyond the vague promise of a state, the Quartet statement made no serious commitment that could meet the demands of the Palestinians, or for that matter Arabs. No mechanism was set out to ensure a freeze of illegal Israeli settlement construction on land that would constitute, in theory, a future Palestinian state. And no specific guarantees were demanded of Israel to ease sanctions imposed on the Palestinian civilian population in the occupied territories. Instead, the Quartet statement offered only indirect appeals to Israel to accommodate these Palestinian concerns. On the other hand, it was clear in demanding of the Palestinians to continue efforts aimed at curtailing all acts of militant resistance -- qualified by the Quartet as "terrorism" -- and promised to work to support the Palestinian Authority's economic and technical capacity to do so. Palestinian and Arab officials did not seem particularly dismayed by the statement said to be similar to previous statements issued by the Quartet. What Palestinians and Arabs seemed concerned with was the understandings concluded in a meeting that Egypt hosted Saturday evening for the Quartet, the Arab League secretary-general and Arab foreign ministers involved in the Middle East peace process. During their meeting with the Quartet, the Arabs aimed to secure Quartet support for the creation of a mechanism to follow up on and judge the level of commitment of both Israelis and Palestinians to peace. They also wanted to secure the support of the Quartet for the convocation of the UN Security Council before the end of Bush's term, to get a resolution or a presidential decree that takes note of the efforts of the Palestinian and Israeli negotiating teams. Neither demand was granted. However, the Palestinians and Egypt still think the meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh was worthwhile. Rice, Abul-Gheit said, would hand over "a comprehensive file that details everything that has been agreed on [during the Annapolis process] to the new US administration". It is on the basis of these agreements that the final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli struggle could be concluded. As such, the Sharm El-Sheikh meetings of Saturday and Sunday were perceived by many participants as an opportunity to get messages across to the Obama administration. Rice, in her last press appearance in the Middle East, promised to brief and advise the new US administration. Quartet Envoy to the Middle East Tony Blair also said that he would encourage the Obama administration to involve itself promptly in reaching a conclusion to negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. The Sharm El-Sheikh meeting did produce the promise of another meeting: a high-level international Middle East peace meeting to be hosted by Moscow next spring, after Israeli elections and the transition to a new US administration. Russian Foreign Minister Serge Lavrov said that his government would consult widely before announcing a specific date for the meeting. The Moscow meeting will not be constrained to the Palestinian-Israeli track but will also handle peace talks between Syria and Israel and a possible peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, sources said. Arab and Western diplomats agreed this week that the continuation of the Annapolis process and the successful convocation of the Moscow conference depend a great deal on US President-elect Obama. Some diplomats suggest, confidently, that Obama is ready to be engaged and that he is already considering a US envoy to the Middle East peace process to work closely with Blair to secure progress. Others suggest otherwise. They argue that Obama will be too consumed with the financial crisis that the US faces. Most agree that Obama's posture on the Middle East will be influenced by three factors: the new Israeli prime minister; the ability of Palestinians to reach reconciliation; and the encouragement of Western partners for brave US intervention. In the assessment of sceptics, Israel will elect Likud leader Benyamin Netanyahu prime minister; Palestinian reconciliation is unlikely anytime soon; and the Europeans will be too busy with the financial crisis themselves. Critics of Abbas say that his determination to pursue inconclusive negotiations with Israelis might be challenged by the election of Netanyahu, the disinterest of Obama and limitations of the Quartet.
