There’s a long road leading from Annapolis to peace

There’s a long road leading from Annapolis to peace

The image of President Bush holding the hand of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on one side and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on the other was a powerful symbol, a sign that the United States president was able to bring these men to the negotiating table.

Perhaps it is also a sign that all three men recognize that time is running out — not just on the Bush presidency — but on the possibility of peace in our time in the Middle East.

Abbas is chairman of the PLO executive committee and heir to Yassir Arafat. But the PLO is being challenged by the more militant Hamas, which has complete control of Gaza and strong support in the West Bank. Palestinian Authority security forces disrupted pro-Hamas demonstrators who are opposed to the peace talks.

A day earlier, in Jerusalem, more than 20,000 Israelis gathered at the Western Wall to show their opposition to the Annapolis conference, and Olmert’s strongest political opponent, Benjamin Netanyahu, warned that the conference would be yet another example of one-sided concessions by Israel.

Majority rule

Despite polls showing that a majority of Palestinians and Israelis want some form of peaceful coexistence, hard-line sentiment on both sides appears to be growing.

It was encouraging that among the nations with representatives at Annapolis on Tuesday were Saudi Arabia and Syria. Less encouraging was the absence of Iran and the outright hostility of that nation to the peace conference.

There is no question that hostility between Palestinians and Israel is an ongoing irritant throughout the Middle East. Some neighboring nations are able to rationalize blatant anti-Semitism by redefining it in the context of disenfranchised Palestinians. They don’t hate the Jews, you see, they hate what Israel has done to the Palestinians.

If peace were reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, some of those countries would have to stop using the Palestinian excuse, or would at least have to begin being more honest about why they see Israel as an enemy.

It is important to work toward peace between Israel and a Palestinian state, but if there was ever a time that such an agreement alone would bring peace to the Middle East, that day is in the past.

There are too many factions and too many flashpoints — between countries and within countries, between religions and within religions — to hope for peace in the short range.

Shooting high

Still, goals must be set, and given that President Bush will leave office at the end of next year, using that as a target date for an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was logical.

President Clinton worked throughout much of his presidency to bring the sides together, and redoubled his efforts as his second term wound down, but without success. President Bush, who was distracted first with 9/11 and then with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq arrives late to the table. If there is any hope for success, he and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are going to have to squeeze seven years into one.

The first meeting of a steering committee to develop a joint plan for the negotiations will be held in a little over two weeks and will then meet continuously. Abbas and Olmert will meet bi-weekly in an effort to assure progress. Such a schedule recognizes that there is not much time to reach results. It also means that Bush and Rice will be able to gauge the level of progress — or lack thereof. They will be obliged to step in themselves or to prevail upon allies in the region to become more actively involved if the talks stall or show signs of disintegrating.