The conclusion of the Annapolis summit has seen a heated debate in the Arab world concerning the results of this conference, which called by President Bush with the aim of renewing the path towards a “definitive solution” to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Widespread scepticism in the international press concerning the value holding of a peace conference in the present climate of political tension formed the background to the days immediately preceding the meeting. Yet the commitment made by all parties concerned to discuss each and every unresolved issue, and the apparent willingness of the Israeli premier Ehud Olmert to reconsider the possibility of the creation of an independent Palestinian state, has changed the minds of many. Not in the Arab world, however, where, in the face of a tight chorus of voices which deride the Annapolis initiative as “the umpteenth farce” organised by the United States, those comments which show any kind of faith in the conference – or which are at least not pessimistic – can be counted on one hand.

It is the big international newspapers – Al-Hayat, Al-Sharq al-Awsat and Al-Quds al-‘arabi – which have dedicated the most pages to reflections on the summit- The national titles, with certain important exceptions like the Egyptian Al-Ahram and the Lebanese Al-Safir, have instead declared their scepticism towards the Annapolis initiative, according it little or no significance and giving priority to other issues, such as the crisis of government in the Lebanon. “The Arabs went to Annapolis with no illusions,” comments Ghassan Charbel, renowned journalist of Al-Hayat. “Their reservations are justified by previous experience. They know that the current scenario is different from that of the eve of the Madrid conference. They also know that Ehud Olmert is not Yitzhak Rabin.” The Arab countries attended Annapolis, nevertheless, because they hoped that the conference might serve as “an opportunity to take back control of a question which directly involves them, since it concerns their rights, their existence, their security and their stability.”

It is precisely the memory of the Madrid conference which is behind the sense of anger and mistrust which has infused the Arab press. “The American administration needed an event like this to prove that its policies in the Middle East region are not destined to be a spectacular failure,” writes ‘Azmi Bishara, again in Al-Hayat, “and the President was unable to come up with anything better than the idea suggested by his Secretary of State – to repeat the Madrid conference that was organised by James Baker during his father’s mandate. The Annapolis conference began like a piece of theatre. In the earliest days of preparation it became clear that it would be a meeting, not a peace conference, and then it seemed that it would simply be an opportunity to get together, and then finally we realised that, in fact, it was simply an inauguration of the negotiations which would follow at a later date. But what was the Madrid conference? That, too, was simply the opening of a phase of diplomatic negotiations. How many times do we need to inaugurate the negotiations? And what have the Arabs who attended Madrid been doing up until now? Negotiating! And whilst they have been negotiating Israel has been filling up the occupied territories with colonies. What need do we have now of a new ‘inauguration’?”

The many obstacles

Not for everyone, however, does the Annapolis summit represent a mere repeat of the Madrid conference. Although sharing the essential pessimism of his Al-Hayat colleague, Sati’ Nuruddin of the Libanese Al-Safir claims that “comparison between the two conferences is almost impossible. The only common element between the two is that this time, too, the US has mobilised itself to find a solution to the Palestinian question solely to distract from a much greater crisis in the Persian Gulf.” When it comes to the content of the conference and to the issues tackled, Arab journalists have focused on more diverse issues. The editor of Al-Ahram, for example, the Egyptian Mursa ‘Atallah, is concerned above all about the status of Jerusalem, which represents one of the most delicate areas of the entire question: “The Arab identity of Jerusalem must remain external to any negotiations, and distinct from any concessions that the Israelis might be hoping to obtain with the arrogance of force and military superiority and benefitting from American support.” He points out, furthermore, that any real pacification of the region must also involve the solution of the problem of Israel’s self-provision of water, which is also at the root of the dispute with Lebanon.

Amongst the problems still in need of resolution, Rajah al-Khoury of the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar lists “the issue of borders, that of security, and that of the re-entry of Palestinian refugees.” This multitude of obstacles on the horizon rules out any possibility of believing that the Palestinian question might be tackled and resolved in a two-day conference. “It has become very clear that Annapolis conference will be merely one more step in the disastrous course that American diplomacy has undertaken in the Middle East for over half a century,” adds al-Khoury. “The only thing we will return from Annapolis with is, effectively, nothing.”

The scepticism towards the summit is also motivated by the fact that Annapolis has been dominated exclusively by the Palestinian question, and that this has been isolated from the regional context to which it is linked and with which it interacts continually. And so even if prior to the peace conference Sarkis Na’um on the pages on Al-Nahar launched the provocative question “What do they say about Iraq in Washington?”, the same sentiment was repeated by the journalist Muhammed Sa’idi of the Algerian Al-Khabar after the Annapolis meeting: “The agenda was limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There was no mention of the Greater Middle East, nor of issues of freedom, of democracy or of human rights, nor of the dossier on Iran’s nuclear programme, nor of the relationship between Iraq and Iran. This reflects the debatable conviction of the convention’s organisers that it is possible to resolve the Palestinian question and that, once this is resolved, all other problems in the Middle East will find the way towards a complete solution.”

The concessions of Al Sharq al-Awsat

The least negative comments appeared in the international daily Al-Sharq al-Aswat, published in London, but under Saudi ownership. “The significance of the Annapolis summit is that it has led to a joint declaration by Israel and Palestine according to which the two parties are committed to discussing all fundamental issues, bar none, with the aim of creating an independent Palestinian state,” writes the expert Tarek Al-Homayed. “We must support the Annapolis conference,” Husayn Shabakshi adds in the same newspaper, “not so much because it is a peace conference, but because it makes way for a phase of negotiations and allows the Palestinian question to return, after a long absence, to the negotiation table as the most important political question in the Middle East.” According to Al-Sharq al-Aswat, however, greater efforts are needed to carry the peace process forward. And in the future the most crucial efforts will be those need to reconcile the various Palestinian factions, more divided today than ever before. The announcement of President Ahmadinejad that he wants to call a conference in Tehran for those Palestinian groups opposed to the Annanpolis summit, has had the consequence of further deepening the internal fractures within Palestine.

But there are also the usual ‘conspiracy theorists’ who maintain that the divisions between the Palestinians are in the interest of the Americans. ‘Abd al-Bari Atwan, editor of the international daily Al-Quds al-arabi, known for his extreme stances and inflammatory comments against American foreign policy, writes: “The American strategy in Iraq of inciting the internal factions against one another in order to distract them from their original objective, which was that of resisting the occupying forces, seems set to be repeated in occupied Palestine. And American capital begins to bear fruit from the moment President Abu Mazen promised in his speech at Annapolis that he would combat Palestinian terrorism without mercy”.

Pessimism is therefore the leitmotiv of the commentary of the Arab press on the Annapolis conference. Positive aspects of the meeting have certainly not passed unobserved, such as the announcement of the Israeli premier Ehud Olmert that his country “is ready to take the necessary measures to realise peace” and that “we are ready to make a painful compromise, full of risks, in order to realise these aspirations.” But even in the face of such apparently positive concessions, the Arab world cannot but help raise strong doubts about the value of these declarations. And so to Olmert’s words, Zuhayr Qasibati replies in Al-Hayat that, “Annapolis is only the beginning of a period of sacrifices. And if the Israeli declares himself, as usual, ready to make painful sacrifices, the big question remains, of which we are beginning to understand the response with ever greater certainty: who will suffer the most?”

Translated by Liz Longden