The current meeting between the Israeli and Palestinian presidents in Ankara comes only a few weeks before the multilateral summit in Annapolis, Maryland, in the US.
This may herald a new phase in the Middle East peace process. Ankara’s desire to be part of the peace process could be a step towards enlarging the list of primary actors and brokers between the Israelis and the Palestinians. There are, however, a number of issues that need to be resolved before Ankara and others can make a difference. The first issue is whether new actors will be allowed into the picture. As everyone who follows the Middle East peace process knows, an undeclared embargo has left many key players, including Russia and the EU, out of the process. They are welcome to make comments but are not allowed to influence the decision making process. The constant Israeli suspicion of everyone except the US has prevented many constructive proposals from being discussed or implemented. Turkey has to overcome this wall of suspicion before it can play a serious role.
The second issue is the current state of the process itself. The deep suspicion between Israelis and Palestinians makes even the smallest gestures of goodwill virtually impossible and dysfunctional. The wall of separation erected by Israel has only widened the gap. The unabated expansion of settlements, daily curfews and the constant humiliation of Palestinians create only further despair and suspicion. The Bush administration has failed the process by turning a blind eye to what is being done in the name of Israeli security.
The third problem is the miserable state of Palestinian politics. The rivalry between Fatah and Hamas has brought Palestine to the brink of civil war. President Abbas speaks as the leader of the Palestinian people but his loyalties make him suspect. If Hamas is forced to choose between a failed democracy and a militant struggle, it will never be made part of the solution. Turkey supported the democratically elected government of Hamas and continues to see Hamas as key for a political atmosphere of national consensus in Palestine. If the Annapolis summit does not include the voice of all Palestinian factions, its results will be more divisive than constructive. A new peace plan rejected or seen with suspicion by more than half of the Palestinian voters will only exacerbate the problem.
The fourth issue is the role of the Bush administration. Like his predecessors, President Bush wants to save the peace process in the last ten months of his presidency. It requires an enormous amount of political capital and diplomatic effort to get the Middle East peace process moving and no one should expect miracles in such a short period of time. The rest we know too well: “Sorry, my time is up!”
The Bush administration has to do more and do it differently if it wants to get something out of the Annapolis summit. As President Abbas said at the Turkish Parliament on Nov. 13, there will be no lasting solution to the Palestinian problem unless the key issues of the 1967 borders, refugees and Jerusalem are addressed. These and a host of other issues have to be addressed in a way that will satisfy Israel’s security concerns as well as the Palestinian sense of justice.
Israeli President Peres said the Ankara Forum, a Turkish civil-society initiative, offers peace a chance. He also emphasized the significance of a creating a viable Palestinian state next to Israel with a booming economy and good services. These are all very good projections. The problem is that such hopes have been expressed before.
Can Turkey make a difference? This will depend largely on the extent to which Turkey’s perspective on the peace process will be allowed to change the existing parameters. This means Turkey will have to convince Israel and the US before convincing others.