1. Eyeing Success, Avoiding Failure: Recommendations Ahead of Summit
2. Rice Redux: Key Statements on Int’l Meeting During October Mideast Trip
3. Jerusalem News: Debate on the City’s Future and Actions on the Ground Ahead of Summit
4. Humanitarian Outlook: U.S. Emergency Aid Request for Palestinians Comes as Situation in West Bank/Gaza Deteriorates
5. Focus on Palestinian Christians: Sec. Rice Visits Bethlehem; Community Struggles Amidst Extremism and Security Measures

==============================================================

As November begins, there are still questions of when the Annapolis meeting will take place, who will be there and what they will be talking about.  Some even wonder whether it will happen at all, but with December 21^st being the official end of fall, there is still time for diplomacy and dialogue to prepare the ground for the summit.  While sage observers of Middle East peacemaking are wont to be “optimistic” about prospects for a reinvigorated peace process, there is recognition of a real opportunity for progress toward a two-state solution and the urgent need to ensure a positive outcome from the conference in Maryland.  Political weakness of the players combined with an increasingly unstable regional situation complicates prospects, but also creates an unmistakable imperative and urgent motivation for making progress toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. 

The necessity of success and avoidance of failure are clear: dashed hopes could too easily ignite a new eruption of violence that would strengthen extremist elements at the expense of supporters of peace.  Secretary Rice is receiving almost daily advice regarding her preparations and how best to ensure that the fall meeting is not merely a “photo-op” as she has consistently emphasized it will not be.  The parties to the talks, the scope of the document they will agree to, the substance of the discussions themselves, the immediate steps that should be implemented, and the follow-up that must take place are the main issues around which suggestions and speculation turn.  Below are some of the key recommendations—from elected officials, U.S., Israeli and Palestinian leaders and experts, and organizations committed to the peace process— that have emerged in the past weeks outlining steps that the United States can take to make the most of the Annapolis meeting. 

1.    EYEING SUCCESS, AVOIDING FAILURE: RECOMMENDATIONS AHEAD OF SUMMIT   

“We are writing to both commend you for your efforts to reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by convening an international meeting this fall and to respectfully suggest that additional measures by the United States in the near term will be necessary to preserve the possibility of success.  As do you, we believe the coming months represent a critical opportunity to stabilize the region by advancing a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians…However, it is equally clear that a still-born initiative could set back prospects for peace…Clearly, robust, hands-on U.S. leadership and diplomacy is necessary to frame not only on what transpires at the meeting, but on what takes place before and after it. But dialogue and encouragement of the parties will not, by themselves, be sufficient…Accordingly, we urge you to consider a reorientation of U.S. project-focused assistance programs…U.S. assistance should be used-and should be designed to leverage international support-for financial and personnel reforms in the Palestinian Authority, for housing or other labor intensive projects, for the effective operation of a Palestinian police force and an independent Palestinian judiciary, and for long-term economic development and job creation programs. Addressing corruption and public safety in the P.A. while continuing to engage with Israel to coordinate a remittance schedule for Palestinian tax monies and to improve access and movement will ensure that assistance will be effective in reviving the Palestinian economy….Madam Secretary, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, through the establishment of two states for two peoples, is too important not to seize the opportunities that have emerged over the past weeks…We look forward to working with you to ensure that it is a success.”  

Full letter >

“Bipartisan Foreign Policy Leaders’ Letter to President Bush on Annapolis Conference”, Signatories: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee H. Hamilton, Carla Hills, Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, Thomas R. Pickering, Brent Scowcroft, Theodore C. Sorensen, Paul Volcker, Joint Project of the U.S./Middle East Project, International Crisis Group and the New America Foundation, October 16, 2007

“We are writing to share with you a statement on the forthcoming Middle East peace conference adopted by the above-named organizations, whose contents we strongly endorse:  The Israeli-Palestinian peace conference announced by President Bush and scheduled for November presents a genuine opportunity for progress toward a two-state solution. The Middle East remains mired in its worst crisis in years, and a positive outcome of the conference could play a critical role in stemming the rising tide of instability and violence. Because failure risks devastating consequences in the region and beyond, it is critically important that the conference succeed…we believe that in order to be successful, the outcome of the conference must be substantive, inclusive and relevant to the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians…These three elements are closely interconnected; one cannot occur in the absence of the others. Unless the conference yields substantive results on permanent status, neither side will have the motivation or public support to take difficult steps on the ground. If Syria or Hamas are ostracized, prospects that they will play a spoiler role increase dramatically…And unless both sides see concrete improvements in their lives, political agreements are likely to be dismissed as mere rhetoric, further undercutting support for a two-state solution….”                    Full statement >

“Middle East Summit: A Recipe For Failure?”, Daniel Kurtzer, International Herald Tribune,  October 9, 2007

“As diplomats scramble to piece together the parts of the Middle East peace meeting that the United States is determined to convene in November, one crucial question is getting too little attention: How will success be measured?...Previous Middle East conferences have risen or fallen on this question, and thus it is important to assess what an international meeting at this time could achieve in the Arab-Israeli peace process. Four outcomes could very well determine success….First, the meeting needs to articulate the goal of the peace process and the process for reaching that goal. The goal is to reach an end of the Arab-Israeli conflict….Second, the meeting needs to take a stance on the most critical behavioral issues in the conflict…Third, the meeting must yield agreement on the principles that will inform the bilateral negotiations on final status….Finally, the meeting must establish a realistic timetable for negotiations and milestones for measuring whether the parties are moving toward meeting the timetable….The alternative to aiming for these outcomes is a failed meeting. There is no benefit - and great danger - in convening a meeting with limited goals and no follow-up…Thus, it behooves the Bush administration to set the bar high for this meeting and to establish serious goals that ensure success.”                                                                                           Full article >

“Peace How?”, A Forum on Mideast Diplomacy With Yossi Beilin, Daoud Kuttab, Aaron David Miller, Khalil Shikaki and Ephraim Sneh, In The Jewish Daily Forward , October 3, 2007  

“Following a tumultuous year, in which Hamas seized control of Gaza, we are now seeing a flurry of diplomatic activity aimed at advancing peace between Israelis and Palestinians. With an American-backed international conference scheduled for November, Palestinians and Israelis have stepped up their own bilateral diplomacy.  Some say the time is ripe for a dramatic diplomatic breakthrough. Others see this as wishful thinking.  What can be achieved through diplomacy at this juncture? Is the time ripe for a grand Israeli-Palestinian accord? Or should the parties’ aims be more modest? How can Israelis, Palestinians and the international community best take advantage of the present situation? And what pitfalls lay ahead?  The Forward posed these questions to a group of Israeli, Palestinian and American experts…”                                                                          Full article >

“Defining Success: The Fall Mid-East Meeting”, Analysis and Recommendations on Palestine Policy from the American Task Force on Palestine, October 2, 2007  

“Like any complex diplomatic event, the upcoming Fall meeting should integrate a number of threads. In addition to an agreed document, it should unveil a credible follow-up process, develop the regional dimension in terms of Arab involvement in the peace process, and produce deliverables that ground any diplomatic outcome in reality. Defining the success of the meeting based on only one of these elements will turn it into an all-or-nothing event, maximizing chances of failure and giving its opponents ample opportunity to unrealistically define expectations. The US role in defining and ensuring success is indispensable. It must design and time its role –whether substantively or in terms of process – cautiously to ensure maximum effectiveness…”                                                                                                                                                              Full article >

“A Guide to a Successful November International Conference”, Israel Policy Forum Paper, Ambs. Thomas Pickering, Samuel Lewis, Edward Walker, Robert Pelletreau and Frederic Hof, September 26, 2007

“The November conference can provide a focal point, and to some extent a deadline, for initial progress... The ultimate aim of course should be an Arab-Israeli settlement based on UN Resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), and 1515 (2003); the Madrid Principles; the Arab Peace Initiative, and the Road Map.  Despite these positive objectives, there are serious challenges. Expectations in the region have been raised, and many are hoping for a significant political breakthrough.  At the same time, the criteria for success are vague and the perceptions of the various players and potential players differ widely. The meeting as it stands now seems to be something of a gamble. If it fails, resulting in disappointment and disillusionment, it could further set back the situation in the Middle East…The following recommendations are designed to mitigate the chances of failure and to enhance the prospects of a successful international conference. We define success as an outcome that creates the momentum for continued progress and movement toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…”             Full paper >