Doaa El-Bey looks for a glimmer of hope for peace from Annapolis The US set a date and sent the invitation for the Annapolis meeting, although it has failed to help the Palestinians and Israelis agree on a peace document that the meeting would produce. Now the Israelis and Palestinians are left to themselves to agree on that document with no sign of agreement. In the Jordanian daily Al-Ghad, Ayman Al-Safadi wrote that the Arabs have no option but to work hard to make Annapolis a success by relaunching the peace process. Since the process came to a halt, Israel has managed to pursue its occupational policies that further hamper the establishment of the Palestinian state and deepen the Israeli de facto situation on the ground. However, the success of Annapolis is not in the hands of the Palestinians but the Israelis and the US. Because there are no signs that Israel is willing to act according to the international legitimacy resolutions and accept the establishment of the Palestinian state, the ceiling of expectations from the meeting should be kept low. There is nothing to indicate that the meeting is the historic opportunity as the US President George Bush described it when he announced it a few months ago. Nevertheless, Safadi insisted that the efforts to press the US to adopt a clear stand from peace should continue. "Bush suggested the two-state solution; the Arabs accepted it but Israel did not. Thus Bush is supposed to pressure Israel to accept that solution because it is clearly the party that is hampering progress towards peace and defusing tension in the region," he wrote Aida Al-Naggar pinned no hopes on Annapolis especially at a time when Israel is complicating the situation by asking more Jews to come to Israel in the name of further Judaising the Jewish state and digging around Al-Aqsa Mosque in spite of the objection of the Arab and Islamic states. However, she advised any Arab or Islamic party attending Annapolis, which she described as the autumn of peace rather than autumn's peace meeting, to be cautious. "While the US is advertising for and attending the Annapolis peace meeting, it is planning for another war in the Middle East against Iran whose nuclear programme breaks Washington and Tel Aviv's hearts," she wrote in the Jordanian daily Al-Dostour. In the Lebanese political weekly Al-Kifah Al-Arabi, Fouad Hebeiqa pointed to four painful contradictions commemorating the third anniversary of Yasser Arafat's death. First, the Palestinian negotiators who concluded the Oslo agreements 14 years ago are still negotiating to start implementing these agreements. In addition, there is no sign, a few weeks before the Annapolis meeting, that the Palestinian and Israeli leaders would agree on the nature of the settlement required from the meeting or that the US or Israel are willing to conclude another agreement before the end of Bush's term in office. "The Israeli team is divided into two teams: Olmert's and Livni's, and they differ in order to thwart Annapolis. The Palestinian team is also divided into two or more teams which will also work to thwart any possible peaceful settlement. Participation in Annapolis is participation in an illusion," he wrote. The second contradiction is that the Palestinian state that the Israelis could offer is entirely different from the state that the Palestinians dream about. The third contradiction is that the Palestinian authority chose to ignore the fact that the Palestinian division is likely to thwart any peaceful settlement. If, when they were united, the Palestinians failed in the previous peace agreements, how could they possibly conclude any agreement now when they are in a state of absolute division? The fourth contradiction is that the Palestinians and most of the Arabs still believe in the present US administration. They behave as if the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is exerting every effort to draw the borders of the promised Palestinian state and conclude a historic agreement that would be supported by Egypt, Jordan and the six Gulf states. That behaviour, according to Hebeiqa, merely reflects the pressure that Washington put on these states to ensure their regimes'stability in exchange for normalisation with Israel. The return of the Palestinian lands or rights are not in that equation at all. The Palestinian political daily Al-Quds questioned the nature of the meeting and its objectives: Would the Arabs and Palestinians get the least possible international guarantees that the meeting would be a success or would they go to the meeting to state their well known demands and to hear Israel reiterate its rejection of these demands, so that the ball would be thrown again in the court of bilateral negotiations without any timetable or an effective role from the international community? Thus the editorial called on the US and Europe to swiftly turn to Israel to remove the obscurity and obstacle that its government places on peace. By so doing, the meeting could acquire genuine content by setting a timetable and giving the international community an effective role in the negotiations. Only then, will we see positive indications that Annapolis and the donor states meeting that would follow it can succeed. In its editorial, the United Arab Emirates independent daily Akhbar Al-Arab wondered why the US State Department and newspapers focussed on what would come after Annapolis. It ascribed that to their pessimism about what Annapolis would offer especially after the Palestinians and Israelis failed to reach common ground for dialogue and negotiations. It is obvious that Israel regards Annapolis as a chance for chatting and repeating what was said in previous negotiations. "If the Arabs do not want to get lost they have to take a firm stand against the Israeli procrastination and deceit by holding an Arab, Islamic meeting that clearly outlines the Palestinian path," the editorial read. Khaled Al-Kharoub wrote that Annapolis meeting put all parties in a state of destructive waiting for the outcome of Annapolis although they all know that it is not going to make any difference. The Palestinian government is waiting although it knows that Annapolis has no meaning or content and that Israel has one strategic objective at present which is to widen the inter- Palestinian differences. In the United Arab Emirates independent daily Al-Ittihad, he questioned why Hamas is waiting, what is stopping it from correcting the mistake that it committed in June by taking Gaza and putting the Palestinian issue in a dilemma. He also wandered why Fatah is waiting to review its policies and deal with the reasons that made it lose the elections last year. It lost a chance to regain its credibility and status among its followers by preferring to wait rather than to act. "The Palestinian parties should stop waiting. Waiting is the dangerous game that allows Israel to carry on wiping out the Palestinian presence step by step," he concluded. He considered Israel's request for a recognition of Israel as the land of all Jews in the world as a condition to peace as the last of these steps.
