Annapolis will achieve little

This Middle East summit is a distraction that will achieve little

James Forsyth

21 November 2007

/article_images/articledir_731/365586/1_listing.jpg

The Annapolis Middle East summit won’t produce anything more than a commitment to hold another meeting. But the real worry is that Condoleezza Rice’s intense focus on the Israel Palestine question could distract her from more pressing matters in Iraq, Pakistan and North Korea.

Even if Annapolis does kick-start a negotiating process, the chances of success are slim. Levy, looking on the bright side, jokes: ‘It’s the same odds that the Israelis score a last-minute goal against Russia. Unlikely, but it could happen.’ It seems doubtful, though, that the people of the Middle East will get as lucky as Steve McClaren. The Palestinians do not yet have the institutions required for effective statehood, and it is hard to see how Blair can help build them while they themselves are engaged in their own civil war. Hamas is still a rejectionist force and, in these circumstances, Abbas cannot, even if he wanted to, make the compromises necessary for peace on issues such as right of return and the Jewish identity of Israel. With Ehud Barak looking to outflank Olmert on the right, disengagement from Gaza bringing not peace but a Hamas enclave, and the political uncertainty created by various corruption scandals, it is far from certain that the Israeli leadership can deliver an agreement on settlements and Jerusalem.

The Bush administration’s supposed commitment to getting the job done before it leaves office is unrealistic. It will almost certainly be left to the next president to try and broker a peace deal — yet again. Then, the issue becomes whether a new administration is prepared to risk its first year being sucked into the vortex of Middle East peacemaking with no guarantee of success: unlikely, to say the least.

A permanent peace between Israel and Palestine with two democratic states living securely side by side is obviously to be wished for in its own right. It would also remove at least one cause of grievance in the Muslim world. But the idea that it would prompt jihadis from Waziristan to Whitechapel to lay down their arms is fanciful and fails to appreciate the true extent and nature of the Islamist agenda.

Annapolis will, barring disaster, be the start of a process. But the prospects for peace in the foreseeable future are dim. There is a risk, as the former Cabinet secretary Lord Butler said of Blair in Northern Ireland, that the process becomes everything, and you pay too high a price to keep it moving. The biggest danger, though, is that Rice’s negotiating skills and energy will be so consumed by this quest for the ultimate diplomatic achievement, that gains in Iraq are squandered. If that were to happen, it would make this event an even greater tragedy — and one with worse consequences for the Middle East and the wider world — than Arafat’s refusal to say yes in 2001.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

More articles from: James Forsyth | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Julian Cox

November 23rd, 2007 2:26pm Report this comment

With her outrageous demand that Jerusalem, the one and undivided, historical capital of the Jewish homeland be divided, I sincerely hope that Condoleezza Rice is not only distracted but develops a nasty case of Attention Deficit Disorder. Who needs enemies when we have friends like her?

William Garrett

November 23rd, 2007 9:09pm Report this comment

To Julian Cox (comment) Palestine has not been a Jewish homeland for 2000 years. To assume that the Jews have a right to return and throw out the indigenous inhabitants displays racial arrogance. The Jews were treated like rubbish by Nazi Germany but now they treat the Palestinians in a like manner. For shame.

Julian Cox

November 24th, 2007 12:52pm Report this comment

William Garrett, following your argument, the English must surely give London back to the Welsh. I am talking about dividing Jerusalem into two political polities. I am not talking about the ethnic cleansing of those Arabs (and others) presently living (and voting) there. Jeruslem was never the capital of an Arab state. The comparison of Israel's behaviour toward Arabs with Nazi Germany's toward its Jews is a calumny that makes me question not only your anti-Semitic racism but the Spectator's decision to reproduce your odious views. For shame....

A. Resnick

November 26th, 2007 1:41am Report this comment

The Arab countries don't want peace with Israel, they want to destroy it. How does one enter into peace talks with a opponent who only desires your annihilation.

Alex Haver

December 2nd, 2007 2:14pm Report this comment

Mr. Alan Resnick's comment goes to show that he, most likely, hangs out w/ a wrong crowd, otherwise he would have noticed that at one time both Jordan and Egypt tried to destroy Israel. Today, however, they have solid diplomatic relations.

Post comment