November 28, 2007
So it's over...wham bang thank you mam.
It was essentially what I predicted below (Nov 12, 17). An empty show void of content, a promise to re-invigorate a process already brain dead and having left in its wake more war and suffering and nothing remotely approaching a process that could lead to peace. Harsh analysis perhaps, but I would argue not off the mark.
I read and listened carefully to different sources. A number of progressive Jewish groups here in the USA supported Annapolis, among them B'rit Tzedek and the San Francisco based Jewish Voice For Peace. They are both good organizations and while some of them may make much of the fact that they supported Annapolis and I dont, let's not overstate the differences. Their commitment to a meaningful Middle East peace for both Israelis and Palestinians is not something I question. My view is that poorly planneed peace meetings like this one - perhaps the worst planned of any Middle East peace conference - can backfire in all kinds of ways. That and that the good will of people longing to see an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is easily manipulated - as I believe it has been at Annapolis.
Let's probe this a little deeper.
If you listen carefully to how these groups positioned themselves visavis Annapolis it is interesting. They do not deny the pervasive skepticism about the conference. This is especially true of the Israeli commentator Daniel Levy who often comments of B'rit Tzedek. His comments on Amy Goodman's `Democracy Now' today (Nov. 28) were, quite frankly, on the edge of rejecting the conference's outcome.
There were very few Palestinian voices expressing optimism, although the American Task Force on Palestine, a rather new formation of very articulate and savvy Palestinian-Americans did put a positive spin on it. They were largely alone. Virtually all the Palestinian voices - in the USA or Palestine were strongly opposed. This cut across sectarian (Fateh, Hamas) lines.
The line of reasoning of B'rit Tzedek, Jewish Voice For Peace and Daniel Levy was more or less the same: regardless of the conferences short comings, that a certain momentum toward peace has been created and that we should all try to build upon it to strengthen and deepen the peace process, even if it be a wounded bird. The thinking is that the momentum itself can and will create new conditions and a possible deepening of negotiating that will result in qualitative and positive change.
Of Mud and Roses
I have heard this logic many times before and frankly often believed it myself. Sometimes - but rarely - such things do happen. But if you think about it, such logic suggests that a miracle is about to occur: out of the shallow mud of Annapolis a rose will bloom.
This is simply not credible.
And the signs were everywhere.
+ Just before Annapolis the conservatives in the Knesset put forth a resolution that would annex Jerusalem forever and take it out consideration in negotiations
+ the noose around Gaza, which Richard Falk, reknowned social scientist claims is `approaching a genocide' (I agree with him) is tightening. During the conference 4 Palestinians in Gaza were killed and in the West Bank, demonstrations opposing Annapolis were broken up with 1 death. I fear an approaching blood bath in Gaza now that Annapolis is over.
+ As has been pointed out even in the mainstream media (and I elaborated upon it below), there was no political framework for this meeting. The key questions - that of borders, Jerusalem and refugees were not on the agenda. The conference did not take place under the auspices of UN Resolution 242. The Saudi peace initiative, mentioned in passing in the invitation letter, was dead on arrival at Annapolis.
+ Bush made the usual idiot of himself, inviting Syria only to attack it in his remarks, more interested in strenthening his anti-Iranian front than in acting as a peace maker, which he is not.
Gush Shalom's Brief on the Meeting
The Israeli peace group Gush Shalom's take on Annapolis adds more flesh to the bones of Annapolis:
+ WHILE Olmert was on the way to Annapolis, the settlers carried out a pogrom in the West Bank village of Funduk.
+ WHILE the leaders shook hands in Annapolis, the Israeli army killed eight Palestinians.
+ WHILE Olmert expressed "understanding for the sufferings of the Palestinians", the blockade that starves the population there went on.
+ Olmert gave the conference a wreath of beautiful promises. He must prove that they are not rubber checks.
I'd like to know more about
the pogrom at Funduk.
Annapolis: Child of Camp David
On a deeper level, Annapolis represents yet another downward step away from peace that started with Camp David in 1979. When that agreement was signed in 1979, I was invited to give a speech to a rather large audience in Ft. Collins (at the university there). They expected me to support the agreement as a meaningful step towards peace. Then like now, I very much wanted to do so. But all the signs that I could gather suggested that while peace between Egypt and Israel was achieved (and Egypt since neutralized) that with Syria and the PLO (then not recognized by the USA) would not follow.
I also suggested that the pattern of isolating one of the negotiating partners rather than dealing with a comprehensive package would not quicken but slow progress to achieving peace. And that if left to fester, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - or as it should more accurately be called - the Israeli Occupatio of the 1967 territories could become - especially for the Palestinians, but ultimately for the Israelis as well - one of the great tragedies of our time.
Prince Booed Again
For that I was nearly booed off the stage. It was the most hostile reception I have ever gotten in 35 years of public speaking on this issue. It is not complicated: the audience wanted Middle East peace and I was telling them this wasn't - from all I could tell - the real thing. Not only that, I suggested, without then knowing the details, that if the momentum towards peace was not legitimate, that war could not be far in coming as it did in Lebanon in 1982. People walked out, they were mad, really mad and very upset. It seems I had burst their illusion and what else is it that people cling so desperately to other than hope. Once again, I showed a genuine talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong audience and for burning bridges with mainstream America.
Although he has come a long way since, I put part of the responsibility for the stagnation on the Israeli-Palestinian issue on Jimmy Carter. How naive could Carter have been to have accepted Menachem Begin's word that he would, after making peace with Egypt, do likewise with the Palestinians? When Carter (yep the same one Israel's more zealous supporters are now howling `foul' about) accepted the precedent of dealing with one issue at a time, rather than pushing the negotiations towards a final, all-encompassing political resolution of the conflict, he set in motion a pattern of negotiations that has permitted the US and Israel to isolate the Arab players one by one, and in so doing exert maximum concessions from them.
What the Palestinians (and Syrians) lost at Camp David, they have not, 28 years later, been able to regain. That is almost 200,000 illegal Jewish settlers and 500+ West Bank road blocks ago. A friend in California chided me that it took the Irish 800 years to win their freedom from the British so that 40 years (if you chose 1967 as your starting point) or 79 years (if you chose 1948) really isn't that long. Maybe. But I see the prospects for a two state solution fast slipping away with every mile that the wall is constructed, with every settlemente expansion in the West Bank, with every helicopter attack on Gaza.
And I worry what lies ahead and still, after Annapolis, I don't see the deeper, more substantial signs of movement towards peace. But then I've been told before (and accurately) that my vision isn't very good.