Global Terrorism
The Return of the Roadmap: A Shift in the Annapolis Process | The Return of the Roadmap: A Shift in the Annapolis Process |
|
Aluf Benn
During her visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority in early March, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke about activating the trilateral mechanism headed by US General Charles Frasier to monitor the fulfillment of the Roadmap obligations of both sides.
American officials explained that the Administration has not given up hope of reaching agreement on the core issues in the conflict but that it is logical to focus now on a parallel improvement in the situation on the ground. If the reality does not change, they argued, any agreement reached would be purely theoretical.
There are probably two reasons for the change in Administration priorities that Rice is trying to bring about. The first is that there is no sign of any progress on the “core issue” discussions between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA President Mahmoud Abbas and between Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and the head of the Palestinian negotiating team, Ahmad Qur’ei. The chances of reaching an agreement by the end of 2008, as proposed at the Annapolis Conference, now seem remote – and the Bush Administration is seen as responsible for yet another failure in the peace process.
The Palestinians are required to reorganize the PA’s security forces, to act openly against “individuals and groups” planning and carrying out terrorist operations against Israelis, and to dismantle terrorist infrastructure and capabilities. Not surprisingly, both sides have consistently avoided carrying out their obligations since the publication of the Roadmap five years ago.
The American columnist David Ignatius, who is close to Rice, cited a “senior Administration official” claiming that Israel has not evacuated even one outpost and has done nothing to relax the roadblocks that cause daily humiliation to the Palestinians. Another complaint was that the IDF does not rely on PA security forces and prefers to act by itself on the ground. It is noteworthy that the background conversation with the columnist focused on criticism of Israel, in contrast to the more balanced approach that Rice took in her public briefings. Rice was not persuaded and Barak responded by sending the head of the Ministry’s Political-Military bureau, Amos Gilad, rather than coming himself. The Palestinians were represented by Prime Minister Fayyad, who has ongoing contacts with Barak on current issues. Olmert has not publicly expressed any disagreement with Rice, but his declarations and actions show that he has reservations about the shift in the Annapolis process that Rice is trying to promote. He announced that he would persist in the political process with Abbas despite the escalation in Gaza, thereby emphasizing his focus on “core issues” rather than on improving day-to-day conditions for Palestinians.
Following the attack on the “Merkaz Harav” Yeshiva in Jerusalem in mid-March, Olmert publicly authorized the construction of 750 housing units in the settlement of Givat Zeev after working in recent months to stop or at least slow down new building beyond the “Green Line.” In so doing, he ignored the expected criticism by the PA and the U.S. Administration of his decision, which was taken only a few days before the monitoring meeting chaired by Frasier.
Bush will almost certainly refuse to allow differences on outposts and roadblocks to overshadow demonstrations of friendship for Israel. The Administration will also take into account Olmert’s domestic political constraints and will make every effort to prevent the collapse of his government. SOURCE: INSS
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (0)
![]() Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|