Big Jew on Campus: Annapolis - two little, too early

When I saw the article in the Jewish Week about the Annapolis peace conference this week titled “Too Little, Too Late” I thought that they slightly missed the point as to why those who desire peace should be pessimistic about the outcome of this conference. The attempts at peace - through the agreement on a final status deal between the Israeli and Palestinian governments by the end of next year - were valiant and in the eyes of many exactly what was needed to make a lasting peace. Unfortunately, the timing of such drastic measures is completely off and will only result in more setbacks.

It saddens me as a proud American to say that the blame for what will become known as the failure of Annapolis 2007 rests on my president, George W. Bush. Many can say that he was brave and took a big and dangerous step in the right direction in the name of peace in a region which does not offer much hope for security or democracy. Yet, the most courageous thing President Bush could, and should have done was to not do anything. He should have had the foresight, and the courage, to take a step back from the so-called peace process, and realize that now is not the time for either the Palestinian Arabs or the Israelis to be able to handle the responsibility of reaching such agreements.

This brings up the “two little” aspect of Annapolis. President Bush made the same mistake that so many American, Israeli, and Arab leaders have done in the past, and that was give in to their desire of making it into the history books as the person who made peace in the Middle East. He rushed into a peace that was not there. Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief David Horowitz argued that Annapolis was “seeking to achieve the hitherto unattainable final peace agreement within barely a year, before the Bush era is over…”

Did President Bush really think that an outline for Palestinian state that does not support terrorism and the destruction of Israel could be agreed upon by the end of his term? Instead of stepping aside and trying to create an atmosphere in which peace could be possible later by taking steps to remove Hamas from power and removing terrorists from the scene, President Bush engaged two of the weakest, or “little,” leaders in the Middle East. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas represents a government who was democratically removed. He does not command much respect among the Arabs.

If it were not for American support Abbas would not be on the political map of the Middle East anymore. His counterpart, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, amidst corruption charges, has almost no support in Israel. In March of this year, he had a 3% approval rating. The common denominator between Abbas and Olmert, besides having no support from their peoples or governments, is that President Bush believes that these two leaders can usher in the elusive peace that more pragmatic and powerful leaders in the past have failed to find. The only person that believes in either of them is President Bush. He could have waited for two better and more prominent men who are at the lead of the Palestinian Authority and the Knesset to establish a peaceful framework, and he should have accepted the reality that this was not going to happen during his presidency. Instead, President Bush found two weak leaders who return home from Annapolis to the turned backs of their peoples.

Annapolis was also “too early” simply because we cannot ignore the giant guerrilla in the room. They ignored this guerrilla because it was the one government that was not present at Annapolis; Hamas. President Bush waited for the overthrow of the oppressive Islamist regime in Afghanistan to bring democracy to that country. In Iraq, the process is still ongoing, but Saddam Hussein and the Baathists were removed from power before anyone started talking about an Iraqi democracy. Yet in soon to-be Palestine, President Bush wants to see a Palestinian state agreed upon at a time when a terrorist organization controls the government. And despite the spirit of Annapolis that Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman feels so optimistic about, Hamas has said they will continue to fight Israel’s existence. There will be no final status agreement that Hamas will find acceptable that has the word “Israel” in it. Nor in the foreseeable future does Abbas have the ability to regain enough power for Hamas to be insignificant in the Palestinian government. Whatever is agreed upon in Annapolis won’t see the light of day in Gaza.

What has unfolded this week has been a resurgence of the same Oslo-era thinking that produced an even more fragile and dangerous situation than the one preceding it. American presidents repeatedly try to force peace into the Middle East, especially at times when terrorist organization, whether they are the PLO or Hamas, are at the helm. Olmert, Abbas, and will Bush return home with good plans hatched at a bad time. Now in Jerusalem a government stands on the brink of collapse with a heavy burden. In Ramallah, Abbas sits and watches as Hamas takes more control of what was created by his predecessors in Oslo with a plan he cannot implement. In Gaza, Hamas waits for the right time to carry out its mission. In Washington, Bush thinks his mission has already been accomplished.