IRRECONCILABLE EAST

An international conference on the Arab-Israeli settlement (under the aegis of Washington, of course) will be held in Annapolis, Maryland, soon. The idea of the conference was approved on 24 September by the Quartet of international mediators on the Middle East (USA, Russia, EU and UN). A joint communique adopted at the end of the Quartet's meeting at the UN headquarters says that "the international meeting on the Middle East should approve the principles of settling the problem through the establishment of two states by rejecting violence". However, the closer the date for this event, the more questions international observers have. Is this a suitable time for the meeting? What will be the final composition of its participants? Will the conference take place at all? If it does take place, will it be productive?

There is an impression that Washington is trying to build a pyramid that falls apart all the time… The parties to the conflict constantly express their doubts and convulsively try to strengthen their positions. It was stated right at the start that the Palestinians and Israelis should prepare an agreement on the basic principles of the settlement before the meeting in Annapolis, based on which it would be possible to solve the problem that has affected millions of people for decades. Work on the joint document began on 8 October, but there has not been any special progress since then. Israel and the Palestinian Authority are still on the opposite sides of the barricades. The Palestinians insist on the signing of the so-called "framework agreement" that would identify specific dates and specific obligations. Like before, Mahmoud Abbas and his administration are demanding Israel's full withdrawal from all the territories that were occupied in 1967, a fair solution to the issue of refugees and the partition of Jerusalem. In an interview with local television, Abbas announced for the first time the size of the territory of the future Palestianian state on the West Bank of the River Jordan and in the Gaza Strip - 6,025 square kilometres. In turn, the Israelis are not delighted with such plans. It seems that they are not going to go farther than identifying future intentions, which will not lead to the signing of a legally-bound agreement or as the Israelis themselves call it - "a programme document with unclear formulations".

Meanwhile, Washington's initiative is still perceived as the most substantial attempt in seven years to solve the differences between the Israelis and Palestinians. It is presented as an attempt to prepare the ground for establishing a Palestinian state. The seriousness and scale of these intentions is proved by the proposed composition of participants in the meeting which is expected to be attended by representatives of a number of Arab states, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, some Persian Gulf countries and probably Syria. "For all these years, the Palestinians have been hearing promises and now they want to see that serious and single-minded efforts are being made to establish a state. This is important as people who want to reject extremism need something to stand for," US President George Bush said confidently.

At the same time, it is absolutely obvious that the good intentions of the White House are not enough to untie the tight Middle Eastern knot. The sides to the conflict have a lengthy list of complaints about each other and a large reserve of distrust. For example, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmud Abbas, said at a meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Ramallah that he might resign if the conference in Annapolis fails and that he has no intention of participating in it just to raise Olmert's rating in Israel. Moreover, Abbas specially pointed out that the failure of the peace talks might lead to another upsurge in violence in the region and will probably strengthen Al-Qaeda's influence on the territory of the Palestinian Authority. Some media quoted Al-Jazeera as saying that the zero result of the conference might become the beginning of the third Intifada. In general, the meeting between Abbas and Rice was quite tense. The leader of the Palestinian Authority could not hold back his emotions and said that if it were not for his security service, militants from Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda and other groups, as well as Iranian agents would infiltrate Israeli territory, as a result of which "hundreds of peaceful citizens would be dying there every day". It is clear that the Palestinian leader who controls only part of Palestinian lands (on the West Bank) is under great pressure. The standoff between Fath and Hamas might deteriorate at any time - it continues to claim human lives anyway.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is under tremendous pressure as well. The right-wing parties of Israel - Israel Our Home and Shas have threatened to quit the ruling coalition if Olmert makes concessions to the Palestinians in Annapolis on the key aspects of the settlement - the issue of permanent borders, the status of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees. Thus, the coalition crisis in the Israeli government is deteriorating. For example, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman has told a local TV channel in an interview that "the government cannot continue working in such a situation". "This is my opinion, and Shas leader Eli Yshay holds the same view. We cannot stay in this government if these issues are discussed during the high-level meeting," Lieberman said. It must be noted that he had earlier met US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The meeting with Rice was also attended by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Welsh, the US ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, and a member of the Knesset from the NDI, David Rotem. The Israeli minister made it clear to Rice that the Annapolis meeting is likely to be a serious mistake. According to the politician, instead of this, the United States must make every effort to put an end to missile strikes on Sderot and introduce order in Gaza. He also informed the state secretary about his programme to exchange territories and population - in his opinion, this is one of the most acceptable ways of achieving peace in the Middle East. Lieberman also let it be known that sooner or later, Israel will have to carry out a large-scale military operation in the Hamas-controlled part of the Palestinian Authority - the Gaza Strip. It is no surprise that Olmert himself also said at a cabinet meeting that the multilateral meeting on the Palestinian-Israeli settlement will in fact not lead to a "breakthrough" in the peace process and is intended only as a demonstration of international support for the dialogue between the conflicting sides. "This meeting will ensure a kind of umbrella for political developments," Olmert said.

In this case, it is not clear why the conference should be called with such a mood. Indeed, there is a great risk that it will only be a show. As has been the case in the past, politicians will come together, talk and then go home, but this will have no influence on the life of ordinary people in the current conditions. At the same time, the outcome of the meeting will be rated highly and optimistic predictions will be made.

For the time being, the Palestinians and Israelis are trying to drum up support from as many supporters as possible, and if this does not work, then they will at least try to study the positions of observers. For example, in this regard Mahmoud Abbas has been touring Muslim countries and member states of the League of Arab States (LAS). Incidentally, the secretary-general of this organization, Amr Musa, said that Israeli policy on the occupied territories "minimizes chances of the peaceful settlement and the success of the Middle East conference". This means the mood is far from being positive again to find points of contact. In turn, Ehud Olmert has started active talks with the leaders of Europe. He has already visited Moscow where, according to the Russian media, he discussed not just the subject of Iran and the forthcoming conference in Annapolis, but also the role of Russian diplomacy in contacts with Hezbollah on the release of captured Israeli soldiers, the smuggling of Russian weapons from Syria into Lebanon and so on.

The main driving force of the forthcoming conference - Condoleezza Rice - seems to be somewhat tired. The US state secretary wants to bring the positions of the conflicting sides closer, which is why she is having to use the method of "shuttle diplomacy" - to talk alternately to the Palestinians and Israelis. However, it seems that at some point, she was disheartened and decided to have a meeting with the patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, Theophilus III. Neverthe-less, observers see this as revenge on the Israeli leadership for its intransigence. The thing is that Theo-philus, who was elected patriarch in 2005, has still not been recognized by Israel for canceling the sale of church land to Israeli contractors - a deal that was approved by former Patriarch Irineos. Rice discussed with Theophilus the plan of dividing Jerusalem and informed him about Israel's position on this issue. This visit is important because the Greek Orthodox Church owns vast territories in Jerusalem, and the patriarch's opinion is of great importance in the process of dividing the city. In turn, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of Theophilus III, Israel is clearly demonstrating its desire to run Jerusalem on its own.

Interesting news is also coming from the USA - the venue for the conference. It is reported that non-orthodox Jewish and evangelical Christians of the United States are joining efforts to defend "united and indivisible Jerusalem" at the Annapolis conference. The Jewish Week reports that in order to achieve their goal, they are even ready to act against the Israeli government. "Jerusalem belongs not just to Israelis, but to the whole Jewish people, which is why Israel cannot unilaterally make decisions to divide the city," Abraham Foxman, the director the Anti-Defamation League rights organization, said. The director of the National Council of Young Israel, Rabbi Pesach Lerner, and the prominent Jewish activist of the Republican Party, Jeff Ballabon, also agree with him. At the same time, orthodox Jewish organizations of the United States believe that the status of Jerusalem should be decided only by Israel itself. Incidentally, according to a poll conducted on 13-20 October by the NEWSru.co.il website jointly with the RTVi channel, in which more than 6,000 people participated, 81 per cent of respondents said that Eastern Jerusalem should not be handed over to the Palestinians.

Thus, it is quite likely that the efforts of the Bush administration will be futile in solving the Middle East problem as was the case with the peace initiatives of US President Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, according to some experts, it is quite likely that the US president is in hurry to settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in order to untie his hands ahead of a possible military invasion of Iran. Is it possible to solve this problem in such a hurry if other peace efforts, which were much better prepared, failed in the past? After all, the confrontation involves not just Palestinians and Israelis. This conflict is a point of convergence for many forces in the region and beyond it. Another important factor is no matter who runs the Gaza Strip at the moment, it is also part of Palestine and without its active participation, the peace process is unlikely to be peaceful. So is it worth starting negotiations if the domestic contradictions in the Palestinian Authority itself have yet to be resolved? Or maybe that was the whole idea?