Head of International Departement
PRC and European Left

After a week from the Annapolis international conference and from the agreement reached by Abu Mazen and Olmert, both declaring that a political dialogue will start, able to lead, by the end of 2008, to a final settlement for the birth of a Palestinian State, we can try to do an assessment and an analysis of the Annapolis summit, that is not influenced by the climate of celebrations and enthusiasm that dominated the scene during that days.

The majority of the reactions following the conference were, specially from the Italian Press, imprinted in a really optimistic framework as the hand’s shakes (again) between the three protagonists, were full (again) of renewed hope, with the auspice that finally this time would be the good one, after the long and repeated failures of the past.

The optimistic interpretations that underlined the novelty, the possibilities, that this conference could bring in the Middle East, prevailed even if accompany by an incumbent and motivated carefulness.
 
It is necessary, for us, from many years struggling at the side of the Palestinian people, looking for a solution based on the principle Two People Two States, to not undervalue this feeling of hope, the fact that there is a renewed willingness to dialogue and to pursue a political solution, after years of Israeli unilateral policy prevailing together with the continue denial of a counterpart’s existence.

From the outbreak of the Second Intifada the Israeli government has practiced a fact on the ground’s policy, from the building of the Wall to the multiplication of settlements, to the continue colonization of Jerusalem, systematically ignoring the counterpart. First, Arafat’s humiliation with the Mukata siege, then Abu Mazen, continuing with the government before Hamas and after with the one of national unity. But at the same time it is easy to realize that hope, in order to be cultivated, needs to have solid bases and roots were to stand. If not we are only feeding illusions.

The carefulness  that we need to take into account analysing Annapolis, is due not only to political obstacles, but to the weakness of the conference’s protagonists. In Maryland there were, a George Bush finishing its mandate, quite beaten up for the repeated failures in his foreign affairs policies, anxious to bring some concrete result after 8 years in the White House, something different from the Iraqi disaster or the Afghan bog. Olmert, in permanent difficulties after the Lebanon defeat, continually pressured by the right wing, the one of the opposition and the one of its government, leaded by Liebeman, that according to Haaretz’s declaration continues to raise the “transfer” issue, or better “deportation”, of the Israeli-Palestinian population. 

Everything while the Israeli grab of Palestinian land goes on. Barak, the new Minister of Defense, wanted to underlined, during the conference vigil, that Israel wants to keep the possibility to enter and exit from the West Bank when and how it wants for security reasons, that means to keep the occupation under other appearances. Abu Mazen, felt tight between the United States and their will to  oblige the Palestinian to accept an agreement, of any kind, and from the other side Hamas, that continues to govern Gaza that is not available to grant anything.

The risk of failure, the risk of other missed promises, as we can easily understand, is very high and the potential consequences could be quite much and negative ones.

Taking into consideration the widespread sceptical climate that preceded the meeting, and whom preventive failure was announced by different parts, we need to recognise that the result of making seat down, over Palestinians and Israeli, all Arabs countries interested in the conflict, including Syria, have been from the USA diplomacy point of view, a success, as it was the reaching of a joint statement  in extremis.

A success related to a strategy carried out by Ms Rice, of regional alliance building able to isolate the Iran’s hegemonic aspirations. Is this important change in the scenario related to the big Middle East that allowed the call for a rushed International Conference with faint promises, without clear objectives, that anyhow saw the participation of Saudi Arabia and Syria. The Americans know that if they want to have the will to keep together these countries, and isolate Teheran, they need to resolve, or at least give the impression to, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Declaration text

In fact, the declaration adds just a little bit to the previous framework, it adds the mutual commitment of good will and the recognition that terrorism is a category that needs to be applied to both sides. If everybody has emphasised the text concerning a clear time deadline of negotiations as a novelty element, the Israelis didn’t wait to much to put water on fire in order to extinguish the easy enthusiasms, underlining once again, that that date is nothing else but only a simple auspice. 

Unfortunately, to be confirmed as basement of the negotiation it remained the Road Map, and it is many timed mentioned in different parts of the text. That means, the Israeli chance to call itself outside of it in any moment, and to not respect the agreements already signed, like it has been doing for the past years.

Moreover, it has been chosen as referee super partes with the aim to look upon the Road Map implementation, only the US administration, not the Quartet anymore (USA, Russia, EU, UN). A white and real dangerous bill of exchange was given to a referee, the United States, that has not able to prove during these years its impartiality. A lot of persons welcomed the commitment of president Bush as a strategy change after being ignoring during years what was going on in the Holy Land.

We think that this is a benevolent interpretation. Bush “ignored” what was going on until today, because he sustained Sharon’s policy before and Olmert’s one after. It wasn’t a distraction or a lack of commitment, but a joint point of view, in the name of the common “war against terror” that has defined all his presidency.

And Europe?

Europe, and we feel bad saying it, comes out from Annapolis with a marginal role. The one assuming the responsibility to accompany the future negotiations, monitoring them and supporting them, is only one subject: the United States.

Both parts have convened to give US administration this delicate role of unique referee of this process. For the Israelis is because there isn’t a more reliable partner than them. For the Palestinians perhaps is because they believe that the Israeli’s reliable partner, the United States can be the only one able to exercise a power of pressure on Israel capable to win the resistances of the Tel Aviv government on key points like, Jerusalem shared capital of the two states, ’67 borders, control of hydrological resources, the refugee issue, that must be in any final statement that aimed to be welcomed by the Palestinian public opinion.

It is hanging on heavily, on European credibility, its recognised political weakness, made of announcements and missed promises. First in asking elections, in defining them democratic and then in not recognising their result. After working and pushing for a national unity agreement and for a new government, but then taking the stand with the Israeli-USA ban, denying a recognition that has contribute to the breakdown of the internal situation and to feed the intra-Palestinian division. We will see if in the next summits, Europe will just confirm its role of major donor, or if it will be able to re-launch with an autonomous political initiative the big downsized of the after Annapolis.

And the Palestinians?

In fact, Abu Mazen had few opportunities and a very tight space of action. For him, to only take again in hand negotiations had a value of international legitimacy that he hoped it would help to strengthen him internally. However the declaration, doesn’t add and doesn’t remove anything to the previous framework, but gives a political time horizon to negotiations, offering the opportunity to breath. If Hamas opposition, even if pulled down by the consensus after Gaza’s coup, it was foreseen, is a force that can not be ignored. To its opposition we need to add the sceptical approach of the other Palestinian forces, the leftist ones. The five parties, Popular Front, Democratic Front, FIDA, The party of People and Democratic Initiative, had subscribed last 7 of November, a common document that was alerting on the possible risks of the Annapolis Summit. A scepticism that has remained the same the day after. Concerning this point Abu Mazen made an error  bringing to Annapolis a mono- colored  Fatah delegation, closing OLP to an observer’s role.
With the Road Map, remaining the leading path, we fear it could become the trap where, once again, the Palestinians risk to remain stocked. Even because the Palestinian people, with any doubt heavily proved by the worsening of the occupation, collective punishment, embargos, is not disposed to recognise an agreement not taking into account the historical vindications of the United Nations’ resolutions. 
A peace that cannot be perceived like a just peace, it would be felt like a surrender, and could lead forward the dramatic division of Palestinians, that must be avoid.

United States and Israel

The responsibilities assumed by the United States are really important. The failure’s option can’t be taken into consideration by Ms Rice and Mr Bush, and the results are all burden on their shoulder. In this sense, even Olmert is playing with high risks. As stated by Jimmy Carter, in his book “Peace, not apartheid”, unfortunately not translated into Italian, the Oslo political negotiation process’ failure can be addressed to the Iack from the Israeli side of a true political will in this sense, and of a practice that has created obstacle and obstacles on a final agreement.  

On the table there is not only the few credibility of a presidential mandate defined by failures, or Olmert’s political fate, but the concrete end of the negotiated solution based on two states and two people. A result that we are not wishing for, but that could burden on the United States and on the occupied population. Because is always worthed to remember that we are not facing a conflict between equals,. But an asymmetric one. With a state, Israel, that exists, and a population, the Palestinians, that lives under occupation from 40 years.

Our work

An interesting as quite ignored political datum, it is the unity path that has been started by the Palestinians left forces. We had the chance to meet them in Prague, during the European Left Congress, where we all commit to continue a joint dialogue and to continue to build a common agenda. The reconstruction of a left force in Palestine, able to intervene in the duopolio Hamas-Fatah, on the base of a renewed project that can bring again to the table the issue of the national independence and that could join it with the struggle for social justice, can represent a strong signal for all the left forces in the Arab countries, forces that are living a crisis from many years and that are tighten between the US picture of the Big Middle East from one side, from the other by the Islamic forces.

They could encouraged as well the Israeli left, unfortunately an always more fragile and isolated voice. But our job, over this, is to continue to denounce human rights violations, Gaza overlie, the construction of the wall and of new settlements, that have been the bigger obstacle to reach peace.
We can’t make the mistake of making forget what is happening in Palestine. Perhaps after Oslo, the mistake of the solidarity movement was to think that the arrival was near, minimizing its role to observer. After Annapolis, with more reasons, it is a luxury that we can’t afford.

---

Condividi