While all diplomatic efforts are now being directed towards holding President Bush's proposed Middle East international peace meeting, the press is less than optimistic, reads Doaa El-Bey Bush's call for an international peace meeting was welcomed by many Arab states. However few political commentators pin any hopes on it as there are no signs that it would address the three main issues necessary for a final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: the future of Jerusalem, the refugees and the borders of the Palestinian state. The idea of a meeting has prompted strong reactions pro and anti. The different perspectives reflect the holders' own interests and objectives, as Nabil Hammouda put it in the Palestinian political daily Al-Quds. The Palestinian Authority looks forward to the meeting as opening new political horizons to end the occupation and resolve the three main issues in the conflict in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions, the road map and the Arab initiative. But some Palestinian factions viewed that meeting as a mere repetition of previous peace conferences that came out with general recommendations and refrained from discussing the three main issues that constituted the core of the Palestinian Israeli conflict. They also cast doubt on the credibility of the US and Israeli governments especially now that what remains of the Palestinian territories is economically, politically and geographically divided. Israel, as Hammouda wrote, accepted the meeting under pressure from the international community to move the peace process forward. But it aims for a peace formula that suits its perspective for peace; that is why Tel Aviv made it clear that it is not going to discuss any of the main issues during the meeting. The Arab states welcomed that meeting as a means for imposing the Arab initiative. As for the US, it has more than one reason for calling for that meeting: either out of the conviction that the establishment of a Palestinian state is the only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or as a means to achieve some measure of success after its failure in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the success of that meeting, according to Hammouda, requires tackling the main issues of the conflict and drawing a clear schedule and action plan to reach a final settlement based on UN Security Council resolutions, the road map and the Arab initiative. "It requires a unified Palestinian stand, a firm Arab stance that works to resolve all the pending issues, an unbiased US stance, European pressure on all the involved parties as well as a genuine Israeli will for peace," he wrote. While Hammouda did not rule out a positive outcome to the meeting, the Syrian daily Tishreen cast doubt on any positive prospects and criticised the Arab states that described it as an initiative for peace. "The US move aims to convince the Arab states to normalise their relations with Israel. That is why it is trying to push for as many Arab states as possible to attend the meeting and have their photos taken with the Israeli delegation," the newspaper editorial reads. Omar Giftaly wrote in the same newspaper that Bush's call for a peace meeting should be met with caution as well as pessimism because that meeting is not seeking peace, but merely out to get as many Arab states as possible to attend. Giftaly emphasises that the three main issues are not to be dealt with. "The US, in collaboration with Israel, substituted Security Council resolutions with the road map. The call for a peace meeting indicates that the US is trying to draw up another plan to abort the Arab initiative and involve the region in a new debate in which Israel would be the only winner," he wrote. Ibrahim Abbas wrote that the peace meeting could have some positive outcomes; that is why Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan welcomed it. But they all underline the importance of the Arab initiative as a mechanism for reaching a just and comprehensive settlement for the Palestinians. There are many difficulties that the meeting faces: namely, the US is not expected to put pressure on Israel to meet any past or future commitments for peace, and Israel is just not ready to discuss the three main issues in the conflict. In addition, Abbas questioned whether the US reviewed the reasons that caused the failure of the Road Map in order to avoid them in any new initiative. The answer is no, as all the blame for the failure of previous peace efforts was piled on the Palestinians and not on the inhuman and unlawful practices of the Israelis against the Palestinians or on the extreme rightist parties in Israel for their aggressive plans against the Palestinians. "By calling for a peace meeting, Bush directed another blow at democracy. He is offering the Palestinians a choice between electing Hamas and losing their chance for peace or supporting Mahmoud Abbas and his party, an option which supposedly would lead to the establishment of the Palestinian state," he wrote in the United Arab Emirates independent daily Akhbar Al-Arab. Bilal Al-Hassan in the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat agreed with the Arab states who viewed positive prospects in Bush's call for a peace meeting. But he argued that this is only half the truth as Bush's call has negative prospects as well. It adopts the Israeli point of view in all the issues related to the final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In addition, it aims to divide the Arab states into moderate and extremist states and divide the Palestinians into two groups: the moderate authority and the extremist Hamas. He argues the perspective for peace of the present Palestinian government headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad does not contradict the US-Israeli perspective. Fayyad's government belongs to the group of Palestinians which understood the Oslo Agreements from day one as a means to create a Palestinian entity under Israeli authority. Thus their negotiations with the Israelis were based on taking what is realistically possible from them, and on holding direct negotiations with the Israelis without the interference of any Arab states. Fayyad drew up a peace plan based on keeping all the weapons in the hands of the Palestinian authority to the extent that he proposed to buy back weapons from Palestinian fighters, and giving up the right of return of Palestinian refugees as the legitimate right of the Palestinian people according to international law. "Fayyad aims to create a settlement formula that is acceptable to Israel, a political settlement that creates a Palestinian entity under the full control of Israel." He concluded by saying that only time would prove whether he is falsely accusing Fayyad's government or not.
