Credit:Darko Tepert Donatus

A collection of unpopular heads of government will try to address peace in the Middle East.

Gabriela Perdomo – It’s been seven years since the last Palestinian intifada brought back the prospect of peace in the Middle East back to ground zero. Just months before, a meeting sponsored by then United States president Bill Clinton had failed to broker a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians. With a summit on the conflict coming up this month in Annapolis, Maryland, there are fears a new failure could trigger another dark chapter of violence in the troubled region.

And there are many reasons to believe the U.S.-led summit will not bring about as much as the beginning of a peace agreement. Not only are there major challenges, like the nonsensical idea that a peace process in the Middle East can even dream of succeeding without the participation of Syria or the Hamas militant group/political party. Also, the main delegates expected to be present at Annapolis are all facing their own popularity crisis.

The host, U.S. president George W. Bush, is both greatly unpopular at home and seen, more than ever, as a biased ally of Israel. Furthermore, many fear that the Bush administration is trying to lure Arab moderate countries to participate in the summit not because their support is important to push for the creation of a Palestinian state (the main reason why they are supposed to be invited to the meeting) but because it wants allies to halt the nuclear aspirations of Iran—and to help pick up the pieces in Iraq.

Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert is not in a better position to accomplish much either. Olmert led a botched war against the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon last year that crippled his leadership and credibility. This year, several lawmakers have urged Olmert to resign after police opened three separate investigations into allegations of corruption involving the prime minister. The majority of Israelis think Olmert should take a leave of absence while he defends himself.

Israelis themselves are not so keen on the idea of this U.S. administration—criticized for its propensity to rely on unilateralism—becoming a peace authority, with more than half of respondents rejecting Washington as an arbitrator who will determine what concessions each side should make in order to reach an agreement. In addition, three-in-five Israelis voice outright skepticism about the diplomatic progress that will be achieved in Annapolis.

On the Palestinian side, the figure of Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas is hardly reminiscent of the one of Yasser Arafat, who represented the Territories at the Camp David negotiations in 2000 with a great deal of backing from the Palestinians. Abbas is in an awkward place, to say the least. He is heading the Palestinian Authority from the West Bank, endorsed by Israel and most of the Western international community, while his rival—Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh—has become the de-facto leader of the Gaza strip. Socially, the Palestinians are so worried about their day-to-day situation that they are widely indifferent to what may occur in the U.S. this month.

In 2000, the scenario for the creation of a Palestinian state looked promising. President Clinton, then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Arafat represented three defined agents each with high political power and public backing. The talks failed then and it has taken seven years to resume them. The Annapolis summit, due to take place on the last week of November, faces new and greater challenges, not the least of which is the fact that there seems to be poor political will to accomplish anything at the meeting.

A lack of leadership, the absence of positive omens, and a sum of bad reasons to meet will mark this high-profile summit to discuss the Middle East’s future. But a popular saying states that sometimes good things happen for the wrong reasons. And, as some analysts have started to note, a U.S. secretary of state committed with the talks has been waiting for a chance to prove her negotiating skills since she took office in 2005. Annapolis will provide the best opportunity for Condoleezza Rice to play a pivotal role, instead of tendering apologies for the actions of the current administration.

Archive Search

Search the Angus Reid Global Monitor Politics In Depth archive.