Dr. Bernard Sabella
Jerusalem
December 1, 2007

I returned from a short trip to neighboring Cyprus to find that things in Palestine are not going as well as one expects following the peace meeting in distant Annapolis.  I was told that on Thursday afternoon, November 29th, schools were off; businesses closed; public buildings evacuated and people stood out in the streets between 1:00 pm and 6:00 pm to prepare for a devastating earthquake that never took place. There were two minor earthquakes that hit the country the week before but how the rumor of the impending major earthquake spread nobody knows. The national mood among Palestinians following Annapolis was definitely more tuned to earthquakes than to the peace process.

The situation in Israel was not any better, although not quake-centered. While Israeli radio talk shows in Hebrew dwelt on the UN Partition Plan for Palestine that was adopted on 29th November 1947, some found the speech of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Annapolis quite surrealistic. His affirmation that “the reality that was created in the region in 1967 will be changed in a very significant way,” was not convincing to many Israelis. Some even suggested that he is saying things to please the American hosts regardless of how realizable they are. Others, more harshly, compared Mr. Olmert to a comedian who likes to win the audience but, in the end, leaves no real impact. Mr. Olmert was right in pointing out that significant change will be as “difficult as the netherworld” for many Israelis but he insisted that it was inevitable.

While most Palestinians vented their emotions post Annapolis on the unpredictable occurrence of a major earthquake, some took to the streets to express opposition to Annapolis or to ask Palestinian negotiators to keep Palestinian rights a firm basis for talks with the Israelis.  On the Israeli side, demonstrations also took place to express opposition to any compromise that would change facts created on the ground since the June 1967 Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories. But definitely no euphoria or any of its manifestations, such as those initial ones that accompanied the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, was evident either among Israelis or Palestinians. Annapolis did not bring joy. In fact Annapolis itself could be to a majority of both Palestinians and Israelis a ‘netherworld’.

Because Annapolis did not offer concrete indications for transformations on the ground, the ‘grassroots’ stakeholders on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides were not impressed. A peace process that is likely to be hijacked, derailed and  stalled by Palestinian and Israeli extremists, not to speak of petty politicians, will not bring solace to those on both sides who look and work diligently for a genuine and just peace. The longer the Annapolis process takes, the more likely it will not produce lasting effects on the history of conflict and its resolution. What is needed is an intensive time-framed process that will lead to results that can be felt by people almost immediately. We have stagnated too long in the realities of occupation and conflict and definitely things need to change. The inevitability of change, however, is not only dependent on serious and continuous commitment and efforts of the American hosts but also on the willingness of both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships to reach to an accord that would offer peace with justice, dignity and security to all and that is supported by the public majority on both sides. The task is not an easy one. To go from hysterics to historics in this region requires not only good will but speedy and active involvement of all to make the transformation possible.