Anapolis Summit; the Canadian Press via Mediascout

FAINT HOPE FROM FADING MIDEAST LEADERS
by Jordan Himelfarb
November 28, 2007

Proof, once again, MEDIA SCOUT is SO on the money!! This is Joradan Himelfarb's brilliant analysis of the state of "neutral" Canada's current editorializing on the Middle East. He's seen the real, underlaying issues very clearly.

The Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, which concluded yesterday with a promise of future peace, possessed a crooked kind of charm. US President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, all wildly unpopular leaders among their own people, all with dubious authority to broker with the land at issue—all decided that “the time is right,” as Bush put it, for peace in the Middle East. In a carefully worded joint statement, which artfully sidestepped any mention of the most divisive issues, such as the future status of Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian return, Olmert and Abbas agreed to engage in what the Globe describes as “intensive, ongoing negotiations,” aimed at reaching a deal within the next year. The negotiations are to be moderated by Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Today’s sources spill a good deal of ink on whether the leaders are ready to make the necessary concessions to arrive at such a deal, and whether, if successful, they will be able to sell that agreement to their respective publics.

The Big Seven are skeptical about the prospect of Mideast peace, but, for the most part, commentators are not without hope. In an editorial in the Post, Jonathan Kay concludes that, “as unfashionable as it may be for jaded observers to express any optimism about the Middle East, we find ourselves heartened by events in Annapolis,” while a tough-talking and balanced editorial in the Star expresses a similar sentiment: “However faint, Annapolis is a hope and a prayer worth sustaining.” Only the Citizen, which is surpassingly angst-ridden today, paints a picture of insurmountable bleakness. David Warren’s one-sided editorial in that paper (not available online) lays the blame for the moribund Mideast peace process squarely on the Palestinians for refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli state, and suggests that “nothing essential has changed.” A separate article in the Citizen supports Warren’s scepticism, referring to polls that show that most in the Middle East are dismissing the talks as futile. Still, most sources acknowledge that talking about peace is better than not talking about it, even if the negotiators lack the power or popularity to do much more than chat.