Now that the dust has settled on the recent Annapolis conference that promised to try and reach a Palestinian-Israeli settlement by the end of next year, it is time to review the event that was an unprecedented achievement for the lameduck Bush administration, particularly on the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict that has been virtually neglected in Washington for nearly seven years.
There is no doubt that the consensual last-minute statement announced by the US President George W. Bush at the opening session of the one-day meeting on November 27 lifted the hopes of some of the 50 delegations representing many governments, including 16 Arab countries, and some world institutions.
The fact that a joint statement was finally worked was certainly much better than the absence of one. But hardly had the delegates returned home when some of the disappointments began to surface.
Actually the Palestinian delegation was miffed because Bush announced US "commitment to the security of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people". An irritated Palestinian delegate commented privately, "What about the million and a quarter Palestinian Arabs who live in Israel?"
It must be that Bush has not been briefed fully on this sensitive issue and the sharp exchanges that have taken place between the two sides, especially the point that all residents of Israel should have equal rights.
More daringly, the president was confronted on this issue at the White House meeting he had had with the Palestinian delegation. It was recalled that the Harry Truman administration, which witnessed the birth of Israel, had in fact avoided an explicit reference to Israel as a Jewish state.
On May 14, 1948 Truman's secretary of state G.C. Marshall had sent Eliahu Epstein, Washington representative of the Jewish Agency, saying: "The (US) government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognises the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel."
Disappointingly and unlike the Israelis, the Palestinians as well as most of the Arab delegations at the conference were remiss in not publicising their case in the US, much like what happened after the infamous Camp David negotiations when the late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, and his colleagues lost the war of words that has been launched against them by the Clinton administration and the Israeli government.
As always, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mousa was the only Arab delegate to address the large Arab press corps in Washington while Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal invited only Western correspondents to his only press conference.
The influential National Public Radio interviewed Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, instead of Mahmoud Abbas, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who also held meetings with US Congressmen and US journalists.
What is it going to take to convince Arab officialdom of the significance of talking to the media, Arab and American, as well as Congressional leaders and appearances at influential think tanks here. (Erekat was a late addition to a forum at Brooking's Saban Center.)
But what was most scandalous to the Bush administration in the wake of the conference was its failed attempt to have the UN Security Council endorse the lukewarm Annapolis statement.
Once again, US administration bent over backwards to appease the Israelis who were angered by the American move.
This does not bode well for the future, especially if one wants to consider Olmert's deep fears about the growing Arab community within Israel as evidenced in his warning that Israel risks being compared to apartheid-era South Africa if it failed to agree to an independent state for the Palestinians.
But what he really was saying was that the Arabs of Israel should ultimately consider moving to a Palestine state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, a view echoed recently by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.
Negative signs
This state of flux will continue for some time with positive as well as negative signs until serious negotiations get underway.
On the positive side this week was the launching by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of the US Public-Private Partnership aimed at promoting economic and educational opportunities for the Palestinian people.
Four leading American organisations - the Aspen Institute, Citigroup, Material Service Corporation, the Case Foundation and the American Task Force on Palestine, which is led by Dr Ziad Asali, a fledgling Palestinian-American organisation that has had remarkable inroads within the American establishment.
At a meeting at the House following the launching of the new partnership that was also attended by senior administration officials, Bush reiterated his commitment to a Palestinian state, saying "private participation to help the Palestinians develop a civil society ... is a key of making sure the vision of two states living side by side in peace become a reality".
As Bush said at the launching of the Annapolis conference, "Yesterday was an important day, and it was a hopeful beginning. No matter how important yesterday was, it's not nearly as important as tomorrow and the days beyond."
But more to the point, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Front Page Features