Bush sets tone for peace summit

Analysis:

This Associated Press article which appeared in the Grand Rapids Press is based upon the conference in Annapolis, Maryland between the US, Israel and Palestine. What role does the headline give to President Bush? In the first paragraph is states that Bush is stepping into the role of peacemaker for this conference. What does the title peacemaker suggest and what evidence does the article provide other than these heads of state met that would suggest that Bush will actually be a peacemaker? The shortened version of the original AP story only sources Bush and provides a summary of the dinner meeting with leaders from Israel and Palestine.

The original version of the AP story does quote both Israeli and Palestinian leaders, but does what they say clarify what is at issue in this conference? There is one sentence in the original AP story that provides some context the the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, “American and Israeli officials are resisting Palestinian efforts to include language about “ending the occupation that started in 1967,” a reference to disputed Jewish settlements in the West Bank.” For Palestinian’s this is the fundamental issue that gets to the heart of the Israeli occupation. If US news would provide adequate historical context to this issue, people might read a story about this summit in an entirely different way. Professor Stephen Zunes, in a recent article, provides some context to the so-called Israeli/Palestinian dispute when he says, “ever since direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks began in the early 1990s, U.S. policy has been based on the assumption that both sides need to work out a solution among themselves and both sides need to accept territorial compromise. As reasonable as that may seem on the surface, it ignores the fact that, even if one assumes that both Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights to peace, freedom and security, there is a grossly unequal balance of power between the occupied Palestinians and the occupying Israelis. It also avoids acknowledging the fact that the Palestinians, through the Oslo agreement, have recognized the state of Israel on a full 78% of Palestine and what Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is asking for is simply the remaining 22% of Palestine that was seized by Israel in the 1967 war and is recognized by the international community as being under belligerent occupation.”

Story:

President Bush stepped cautiously into the most direct Mideast peacemaking of his administration on Monday, meeting separately with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to explore whether peace is possible.

“Difficult compromises” will be required but the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are committed to making them, he said.

A day ahead of a major Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Md., Bush said he was optimistic. The gathering is to launch the first direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians of Bush’s nearly seven years in office, and has attracted Arab and other outside backing.

Israeli and Palestinian leaders have already said they want to conclude a bargain within the 14 months that Bush has left in office. The two sides were unable to frame a blueprint for the talks before they came to the United States, and negotiations over the text were expected to continue into Tuesday.

At an evening dinner at the State Department for members of some 50 delegations invited to the talks, Bush toasted the effort and told the guests: “We’ve come together this week because we share a common goal: two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. Achieving this goal requires difficult compromises, and the Israelis and Palestinians have elected leaders committed to making them.”

Bush earlier emerged from an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and told him: “I’m looking forward to continuing our serious dialogue with you and the president of the Palestinian Authority to see whether or not peace is possible. I’m optimistic. I know that you’re optimistic.”

Next, he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who stressed the need to address issues of Palestinian statehood, sticking points that have doomed previous peace efforts.

Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:

“We have a great deal of hope that this conference will produce permanent status negotiations, expanded negotiations, over all permanent status issues that would lead to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian people,” he said. “This is a great initiative and we need his (Bush’s) continuing effort to achieve this objective.”

At the dinner, host Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, sat between Olmert and Abbas. Bush stopped by briefly to share a toast with the participants, and clinked glasses with Abbas and Olmert. They raised their iced tea; for Bush, it was water. No alcohol was served out of respect for Muslim tradition.

Earlier, Olmert said international support — from Bush and also, presumably, from the Arab nations that will attend the conference — could make this effort succeed where others failed.

“This time, it’s different because we are going to have a lot of participation in what I hope will launch a serious process negotiation between us and the Palestinians,” Olmert said. He was referring to the talks expected to begin in earnest after this week’s U.S.-hosted meetings.

“We and the Palestinians will sit together in Jerusalem and work out something that will be very good,” Olmert said. As to timing, he added later: “We definitely will have to sit down very soon.”

The agreement that was shaping up, as Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo described it, is a starting point for negotiations and sketches only vague bargaining terms. The big questions that have doomed previous peace efforts would come later.

The document was to include a formal announcement of the renewal of peace talks, Abed Rabbo said. It will set a target of concluding negotiations before Bush leaves office in January 2009. And it commits the two sides to resolving the key issues that divide them.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia said after an afternoon meeting with Rice, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and others that details of the document had not been made final. “Our efforts are still going on to reach this document.”

A member of the Palestinian delegation, speaking on condition on anonymity because talks are still going on, said three main obstacles have emerged:

All sides have agreed that two states should be established, but the Palestinians have objected to referring to Israel as a “Jewish state.” The Palestinians and their Arab backers are concerned that a specific reference to a Jewish state would prejudice the right of Palestinians who claim a right to return to land they once owned inside Israel.

American and Israeli officials are resisting Palestinian efforts to include language about “ending the occupation that started in 1967,” a reference to disputed Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The West Bank would form the bulk of an eventual Palestinian state and the two sides must decide which settlements would remain a part of Israel.

The Palestinians want the document to set a one-year timetable for reaching a resolution. The Israelis do not want this, and the Americans are open to the idea.

Bush’s tempered outlook suggested he has his own misgivings about the success of the talks, although administration spokesmen said the United States will remain closely involved after the talks close.

The Palestinian question underlies numerous other conflicts and grievances in the Middle East, and has scattered hundreds of thousands of Palestinians across several Arab states.

The Palestinians are unlikely to strike any bargain that their Arab backers and neighbors do not support, so the Annapolis conference is meant to make Arabs what one administration official called “ground-floor investors” in the new round of talks.