So, how about Annapolis?

By now, everyone seems to have given up on idea of Palestinian state by Jan. 2009

Zalman Shoval|Published: 07.22.08 , 09:39

"Can Annapolis' aims be met by year end?" was the question put to me at a recent conference in Berlin. My short answer was "no!"

From the start Annapolis was far from consensual – in Israel, for both ideological and pragmatic reasons – while among the Palestinians opponents included many who hadn't given up their dream of eliminating the Jewish State altogether. Nor was Annapolis well prepared and as former peace negotiator Dennis Ross pointed out – there was very little coordination or planning in Washington or in Jerusalem. Jon Alterman, a respected and experienced Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington put it like this: "It's hard to remember a less auspicious time to pursue Arab-Israeli peacemaking than right now. The politics on the ground are absolutely miserable".

The Palestinian conflict isn't and never was the sole or even the major cause of Middle East instability – and contrary to the view of Zbigniew Brzezinski, presently one of Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers, "the road to Baghdad" did not "lead through Jerusalem" – actually it's the other way around and a perception of American failure in Iraq and a precipitate American withdrawal would not only further weaken the US position in the Middle East – but also have a negative effect on the Arab world's, including the Palestinians', readiness to reach an accommodation with Israel.

But the most fundamental error of Annapolis was trying to put the Palestinian statehood cart before a weak horse which could barely hobble along, let alone gallop on its two legs – the other ones being in Gaza and in Damascus. And mentioning Gaza – it is certain that if Israel were to move out of the "West-Bank," the Gaza-Hamas scenario would be repeated there too.

By now, everybody seems to have given up on the idea that by January 2009 there could be a "democratic, viable, Palestinian State living in peace alongside Israel"; so the aim has been downgraded to a "shelf" agreement which could still happen, although in the wake of Israel's political mess, even that isn't certain now. All three parties would have an interest in such a document – the US for its "legacy" reasons; Mahmoud Abbas so that he could claim not to have abandoned any of the Palestinian extreme positions – while Mr. Olmert, or one of his successors in the Kadima party, could then say "look, we are on the right track – but to get the job done, you must keep us in power!”

However, given the intractability of many of the issues, but especially the general Palestinian refusal to accept Israel's right to exist – to expect "Benelux-like" peace anytime soon is an illusion.

‘Economic peace’

Basically, we are still in the not-having-a-partner situation. Sharon tried to circumvent that problem by unilateral disengagement – with dire results. As President Mubarak recently commented, it's having Iran in Gaza, as we have Iran in southern Lebanon, and would have it in the "West Bank" and in Jerusalem, if we were to withdraw from there.

Though most Israelis might still think in terms of some sort of "disconnect" from the Palestinians, it is far from clear in light of experience since 1947, or even before – and certainly in the wake of "Oslo," if the Palestinians have what it takes to set up their own state – or if established, whether it could survive and overcome its inherent difficulties and fissures. Without belaboring the point, for the sake of intellectual honesty as well as political and historical realism, one must at least consider that creating a Palestinian state – instead of solving a problem, might create a perhaps more serious problem – with not only al-Qaeda but especially Iran inserting themselves into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Of course, one should strive to strengthen the moderates and the pragmatists in the "West Bank" and hope that one day there will be a Palestinian leadership which isn't only committed on paper to peace and coexistence – but will also have the will and the capability to enforce them.

But even before, there could be enormous advantages to joint regional and economic projects – roads and railways can be built, tourist projects can be jointly developed for Jordan, Israel and the Palestinians – and the money for them can be easily found, even these days.

On some of these aspects there seems to be at least a partial meeting of the minds among the International Quartet's representative Tony Blair, Palestinian Prime-Minister Salam Fayyad – and Benjamin Netanyahu with his plan for "Economic Peace" – which augurs well for the future, and judging by Israeli political developments, probably the near future. This wouldn't be an alternative to eventual political solutions, but a corridor leading up to them.

Granted, Islamist fundamentalists will become neither less Islamist nor less fundamentalist – but general economic betterment could have a positive effect on at least part of the Palestinian masses and some of the elites, towards normalizing their lives and their attitudes to eventually reaching a modus vivendi with Israel.