Posted By James Besser
An Annapolis Reading Guide / James Besser in Washington
This week’s Annapolis peace conference has produced a veritable avalanche of words as Mideast think tanks churn out analyses and political groups on both sides of the Mideast peace debate produce position papers and op-eds. And let's not leave out legions of journalists and bloggers.
David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who is right more than almost another Mideast talking head, writes a cogent analysis of the meaning of Annapolis – and the “confidence building” measures necessary as followup.
Ha’aretz blogger and chief U.S. correspondent Shmuel Rosner has one of the best characterizations of the downsized expectations and upsized guest list for the conference. In a story that also appeared in Slate, he suggests readers think of Annapolis as “a big party.”
The Orthodox Union has decided that the battle for Jerusalem is on whether or not there are any breakthroughs at Annapolis. The group’s political director, Nathan Diament, published an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun that called Jerusalem the “unbridgeable divide in the followup negotiations” after Annapolis.
American Jewish groups have been mostly mute in the run-up to the conference, but JTA has an interesting report on some of the behind-the-scenes drama in Jewish communal boardrooms.
Writing in last week's Forward, Leonard Fein writes about the stakes of Annapolis; failure, he argues, could lead to a resumption of large-scale violence and a "terminal collapse of the 'two-state solution.'"
The Council on Foreign Relations offers a somewhat gloomy analysis of the talks, saying that “the conflict is not even close to being ripe for resolution,” and suggesting that the best goal now is simply to avoid making matters worse.
Several weeks ago the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) presented a paper to U.S. officials listing recommendations by their diplomatic experts for a successful conference. It’s not new, but it’s still informative.
Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and now head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, worries that the Annapolis conference signals a shift away from the new U.S. approach to the region laid out in April, 2004, which included a statement that Israel is not expected to return to its pro-1967 borders. Read it here.
Meretz USA offers a “Guide to the Perplexed” on the conference listing the key players and major issues.
An interesting political item in Monday's Washington Post speculates about President Bush's absence from Israeli-Palestinian mediation efforts and the fact he has never traveled to Israel as president. "For Bush, It's Not About Being There" is the headline.
The Post also has a long excerpt from a new book about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that describes her evolution from "passive participant to activist diplomat" on Israeli-Palestinian talks.