Jerusalem, Israel
On Thursday, the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, convened in an extraordinary session to commemorate 60 years since the partition plan with which the United Nations asked for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. The map of the region is rather different to the one proposed at the time by the international community. Not only because Israel, after the war with the Arabs which led to its creation, is in a much larger province than what had been approved, but also because Jerusalem was arbitrarily annexed to become, in the Zionist mindset, the capital of the Jewish state. The war in 1967, won by Israel, again modified the map and reality. And as the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert repeated the day after the conference in Annapolis, Israel risks disappearing if it does not take a step back soon, to guarantee the formation of a Palestinian state by its side.
Even though the majority of Israelis are convinced of the necessity of going ahead on this road, the reactions to the mega media event are pessimistic, and at best, sceptical. The figures from the surveys carried out seem to confirm the confusion and the state of uncertainty which reigns over the country. It is as if many are waiting for a magic wand to appear in the hands of the American President, which will resolve, quickly and in front of the cameras of half the world, the tragic ten-year conflict. Many analysts believe that Israel has won at Annapolis because it did not need to make any concessions. Olmert avoided saying the word Jerusalem (which the president Abbas would have liked to hear from the Israeli Prime Minister); A deadline for the talks was not agreed on (other than the generic wish to finish by the end of Bush’s 2008 mandate in the White House); and for the first time, all the most important Arab countries were present and many of their representatives (not Saudi’s) even applauded the words of the Israeli leader.
The same analysts of Tev Aviv accentuate the fact that Abbas and its administration is “too weak”, that it does not have control of the territory (in Nablus Palestinian police is on the streets by day, Israeli troops by night), the “terrorists” are everywhere, and rightly so, remember how the territory of the future state of Palestine is divided, with Gaza in the hands of Hamas. So? Talks will start and will go on. If ever a confirmation was necessary, everyone has understood that only Washington (perhaps not Bush, who has reached the end of his mandate) is able to drag Israelis and Arabs towards peace. And the Israelis, right and left, are convinced that the president and the secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, will try to put their foot down on the accelerator. Olmert’s opposition, among the right-wing representatives of the government coalition (Lieberman’s fascist party, and the religious Shas) will not step down for now. If there are to be crises, they will happen if and when something concrete emerges from negotiations, those which are more or less in the sunlight and the others, carried forward with much discretion.
Not to be forgotten, on the table, there is also the question of Syria. The press, politicians and even the common people in Israel are looking at Damascus with great interest; some hoping for an end to the conflict with the Arabs, some with the fear of having to give back the Golan Heights. The President, Shimon Peres, has confirmed the existence of secret contacts with Assad (Putin plays an active role in this) and many believe that Israel is in favour of adding an accord with Syria even before signing the agreement with Palestine. The scene is complex. The weight of the Iranian conundrum bears down. Does Bush, feeling stronger thanks to the large turnout of Arabs at Annapolis, intend to attack, with the aim of destroying, the nuclear plants of the Ayatollah? And if it is not him who gives the orders, will it be Israeli pilots (who continue their training for the long flight) who will fulfil the raid? What Israelis take for granted is an effort by the most extreme Palestinian groups (Islamic Jihad, perhaps even Hamas) to launch new terrorist attacks. Until death is not sowed, Olmert will be able to satisfy right-wing and military protests. And he will be able to stop his defence minister, the Labourist Ehud Barak, who, motivated by personal jealousy has up till now opposed Annapolis and Olmert, and who is pushing for a large-scale invasion of the Gaza strip. Even if he is fed up with Hamas’ games, it will be difficult for Abbas to be able to applaud an initiative of its kind. The proceedings and possibility of success of the talks, which will start on December 12th, also depends on this.
Translation by Sonia Ter Hovanessian