The Annapolis conference simply did not emit optimism, writes Rasha Saad In the week of the peace conference in Annapolis, pundits warned against raising the ceiling of Arab expectations. "The Annapolis conference will not create a miracle or record a breakthrough in the negotiations, such as fixing a firm date to create a Palestinian state. It is another beginning and not an end to the negotiation process," wrote Raghida Dergham in the pan-Arab, London-based daily Al-Hayat. Dergham wrote that one should not compare the Annapolis conference with any comprehensive peace conference such as Madrid, or Palestinian-Israeli negotiating sessions such as Camp David. According to Dergham the Annapolis summit will be the first international gathering for the sake of establishing a Palestinian state on the basis of international resolutions and reference points, including the Arab peace initiative adopted at the Arab summit in Beirut in 2002. "The world will head to Annapolis to tell the Palestinians that it places their cause at the forefront." However, Dergham argues that while it might be called the meeting of the weak -- since the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships are weak and because the host of the event is President George W Bush, a lame duck president approaching the end of his second term -- "the modest expectations of the conference in itself do not mean that it will be a pale affair. It is a conference to release Palestine from international isolation and to launch a new qualitative type of negotiations, with international participation and supervision," wrote Dergham. The EU's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana wrote in the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat that the meeting in Annapolis should not be an end in itself but the starting point for bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on final status issues, and should be viewed as a first step towards a comprehensive peace agreement to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. In "The dividends of peace in the Middle East" Solana wrote that as a tireless advocate of efforts to bring to an end the 60-year-old conflict in the Middle East, he has a cautious but determined sense of optimism in the final run-up to the international meeting in Annapolis. "I returned from my trip to the region last week with the conviction that although it will be difficult, it should be possible to relaunch the peace process." Solana believes, "the day after Annapolis is just as important as the day itself. It will be very important to establish a robust follow-up process with the involvement of the international community, under the auspices of the Quartet." Solana called on Israel and the Palestinians to demonstrate their commitment to the two-state solution by taking without delay the measures needed to prepare the ground for the end game. Accordingly, Israel must freeze and then reverse its settlement policy in the occupied territories and the Palestinians must demonstrate their will and their ability to assume the responsibilities that come with statehood, including the responsibility for the legitimate use of force. In Asharq Al-Awsat, Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed wrote that the Annapolis summit has already affected the Arab world, that while everyone expected Annapolis to trigger intra-Arab conflicts as usual, interestingly enough, the meeting healed wounds, some of which have been bleeding for years on various fronts. Al-Rashed cited the recent ease in Jordanian-Syrian relations. "Jordan has had poor relations with Syria for over four years. Unexpectedly though, the Jordanian king landed in Damascus and a joint statement that is filled with political wooing was issued," Al-Rashed wrote. Arab pundits also attempted to uncover the hidden agenda of participants at the gathering. In Al-Hayat Zuheir Kseibati wrote about the US and Arab drive to hold the conference. According to Kseibati, President George Bush needs to see the Annapolis meeting succeed in order to save the reputation of his administration, stained as it is by the massacres in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and his efforts to move the Palestinian-Israeli track forward before the end of his term. On the other hand the Arab states need to end the suffering of the Palestinians which has reached disastrous levels. Kseibati explains that Palestinian emigration has become a constant wound, under the Israeli siege, and that because of the fighting between Hamas and Fatah there is no guarantee that this strife will not be renewed. "It is clear from the fragmentation and crises in the region that what leading Arab states fear is the liquidation of the Palestinian issue if it continues to be ignored," Kseibati wrote. In the London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Abdul-Bari Atwan argues that holding the Annapolis meeting in itself means the continuation of the Arab-Israeli normalisation process, either partially or totally. According to Atwan, it is also a desperate attempt to improve the image of President Bush in the Arab and Islamic mind "after his crimes and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan" and most importantly it is an attempt to create an Arab-Israeli front under American leadership to strike Iran. In its editorial, the Saudi Al-Riyadh newspaper wrote that thanks to the "biased American mediator", the Israeli negotiators are in a better position than their Palestinian counterparts. "Israel is sitting at the negotiating table without pressure, whereas Arab negotiators are at a crossroads, with no political weight or an international backer who can give them hope."
