Annapolis Conference Launches New Peace Process Amid Skepticism

Historic Gathering

The United States hosted the largest Middle East peace conference in over a decade at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, bringing together representatives from over 40 countries including key Arab states. President Bush personally invested his remaining political capital in relaunching Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Conference Participants

Unprecedented attendance:

Israel: PM Ehud Olmert leading delegation
Palestinians: President Mahmoud Abbas
Arab States: Saudi Arabia, Syria attending
International: UN, EU, Russia, China
Notable absence: Hamas excluded

Bush’s Gambit

President opens conference:

“The time is right for a lasting peace. Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that the only way to realize their aspirations is through two states living side by side in peace and security.”

Joint Understanding

Declaration Commitments

Olmert and Abbas agree to:

Launch immediate negotiations
Address all core issues
Strive for agreement by end of 2008
Implement Roadmap obligations
Bi-weekly leader meetings

Core Issues Acknowledged

Final status topics include:

Jerusalem’s future
Refugee resolution
Borders and settlements
Security arrangements
Water rights

Cautious Optimism

Olmert’s Position

Israeli PM’s calculations:

“The time has come. We will have to give up parts of the homeland we have dreamed about for generations,” - Olmert at conference

Political risks:

Coalition fragile
Settlers opposed
Security establishment skeptical
Corruption investigations ongoing
Public support limited

Abbas’s Challenges

Palestinian president’s constraints:

Hamas controls Gaza
Legitimacy questioned
Security forces weak
Public expectations low
Refugee demands high

Regional Dynamics

Arab State Participation

Saudi presence significant:

First such participation
Arab Initiative endorsed
Normalization carrot offered
Iran countered diplomatically
Regional solution promoted

Syrian Attendance

Damascus surprises:

Last-minute participation
Golan Heights priority
No bilateral meetings
Symbolic importance
Future track possible

Obstacles Identified

Immediate Challenges

Conference cannot hide realities:

Gaza under Hamas control
Settlement expansion continuing
Palestinian attacks ongoing
Jerusalem construction planned
Refugee positions irreconcilable

Credibility Questions

Skepticism widespread:

Bush administration lame duck
Olmert politically weak
Abbas represents half Palestinians
Previous failures remembered
Implementation mechanism vague

International Support

Quartet Involvement

International backing promised:

Tony Blair economic envoy
EU financial assistance
Russian diplomatic support
UN framework ready
Monitoring mechanism established

Financial Incentives

Donor conference planned:

World Bank assessment
Billions pledged
Institution building
Economic development
Security assistance

Gaza Shadow

Hamas Rejection

From Gaza, defiance:

Conference “selling out”
Abbas illegitimate
Resistance continues
No recognition ever
Alternative summit planned

Military Realities

Violence threatens process:

Qassam rockets continue
Israeli operations ongoing
Gaza siege tightening
West Bank raids persist
Security cooperation limited

Process Structure

Negotiation Framework

Agreed mechanisms:

Steering committee established
Working groups formed
US monitoring role
International support group
Timeline ambitious

Implementation Phases

Roadmap revival attempted:

Security and institutions
Provisional borders
Final status
Implementation
International recognition

Media Reception

Public Skepticism

Polls show doubts:

Israelis: 17% expect success
Palestinians: 11% optimistic
Americans: Distracted by Iraq
International: Fatigue evident

Historical Context

Previous Failures

Annapolis compared to:

Camp David 2000 collapse
Taba 2001 near-miss
Roadmap 2003 stillborn
Gaza disengagement unilateral

Assessment

While Annapolis Conference generates positive atmospherics and unprecedented Arab participation, fundamental obstacles remain unaddressed. The disconnect between diplomatic ceremonies and ground realities, combined with political weakness of key leaders and Hamas exclusion, suggests another disappointing chapter in peace process history.