By DPA
Tel Aviv : Less than a week before the Middle East conference in Annapolis, Maryland, the mood in Israel and the Palestinian areas is sombre, and expectations seem to be at an all-time low.
Many people in the both the country do not appear very optimistic about the outcome of the conference proposed by US President George W Bush.
“I am completely pessimistic. Pessimistic is an understatement,” said Yossi, a 55-year-old Israeli in Tel Aviv who preferred to give only his first name. “It’s a gimmick, nothing more. Nothing will come out of this conference,” he added.
“Abu Mazen (Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas) shouldn’t waste his time with these talks,” said Mahmoud Abdul Salam, a 45-year-old unemployed construction worker in Ramallah, expressing the majority view in the region according to both Israeli and Palestinian opinion polls.
With such views, the question arises, is the conference, announced by Bush with much fanfare in a July 16 address devoted entirely to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, really doomed for failure.
Bush said the international meeting would be one of nations supporting a two-state solution to the conflict, providing diplomatic support for bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
But since then, four months of intense preparatory contacts that included as many visits to the region by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have exposed deep differences between the sides, which have been arguing on a range of issues.
Both Olmert and Abbas are unable to make controversial decisions at this point in time.
Olmert, an unpopular figure who is under police investigation for suspected corruption and struggling to recover from severe criticism of his handling of last year’s Lebanon war, is keeping afloat a fragile coalition that includes two right-wing parties opposed to far-reaching concessions on Jerusalem and other core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On the other hand, Abbas is recovering from a humiliating military defeat of his Fatah party at the hands of Hamas in Gaza, and an equally humiliating defeat in January 2006 parliamentary elections, when under his leadership Fatah was crushed by the radical Islamic group after four decades of domination over Palestinian politics.
According to Zvi Shtauber, the head of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv, a leading Israeli think-tank, Olmert’s coalition is on probation. “He can’t move. Any move will crack its fragile make-up.”
Unless the sides are preparing an unlikely surprise, there will therefore be no major breakthrough on the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at this point in time.
The joint document to be presented at Annapolis can be expected to touch on some of these core issues, but only in general and without presenting a solution for them, Israeli government officials have said on condition of anonymity because Israel is not discussing the pre-Annapolis negotiations with the media.
This is far from the framework agreement initially demanded by Abbas. However, Israel is planning another Palestinian prisoners release just days before the conference, a gesture which some might call a “consolation prize.”
The less Israel is able to deliver on the core issues, the more it will have to give in measures on the ground, such as also a pledge to freeze settlement construction and the removal of some road blocks in the West Bank.
With Arabs backing, Abbas will be able to move further than his predecessor Yasser Arafat. But Olmert’s chances for political survival appear slim.
However, a majority of Israelis, although they are pessimistic, support a two-state solution and peace negotiations, as do Palestinians.
Rice is therefore currently marketing the conference as a “launching pad for serious, sustained, continuous negotiations,” which Olmert has pledged will begin immediately after Annapolis.
The question, then, is whether Olmert and Abbas will jump into the deep end and really begin serious negotiations after Annapolis, or the summit will prove just another expensive photo-op.