MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Maria Appakova) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) on Sunday, April 13.
This was their second meeting in the past week, which is a kind of a record, considering that bilateral talks had been frozen for almost two months.
Officially, both sides explained this urgency by the need to discuss a number of issues before Abbas's departure for Jordan, Russia, and the United States on Monday. But that does not seem enough to explain the sudden rush. What has happened since their meeting on April 7- other than one more act of terror, which interestingly did not prompt the Israelis to suspend the talks?
Judging by the earliest media reports, the meeting has not been productive. The sides concentrated on the situation in the Gaza Strip - in the middle of last week Israel suspended fuel supplies to this area in response to an attack by Palestinian fighters on the Nahal Oz fuel terminal. According to Palestinian sources, Abbas asked Olmert to resume fuel supplies to the Gaza Strip, but received no answer.
But even before this meeting, the Israelis had said more than once that fuel supplies would be resumed as soon as the situation is analyzed and proper security measures taken. A humanitarian collapse in Gaza is not in anyone's interests. Abbas could hardly expect any new statements on this score. Nor was Olmert enthusiastic about Egypt's proposal for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas fighters in the Gaza Strip, which the PNA leader raised. But this was also predictable, especially in the context of the recent attack on Nahal Oz, and Hamas threats to continue such raids in order to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Nonetheless, this meeting was necessary, especially for Abbas. Leaving Ramallah for more than a week, he must be sure that the Israelis will not take any steps in his absence that would further aggravate the situation in Palestine, thereby depriving him of a chance to continue talks with them.
Washington, the last stop during Abbas's tour, is impatient to hear his report on progress in the talks. It will not accept unsatisfactory progress in this process. A break in the talks lasted for almost two months, and both Abbas and Olmert are using every possibility to bring their positions closer together, whether they succeed or not.
Let us recall that the Palestinian-Israeli talks were resumed in Annapolis, United States in November 2007, after being suspended for almost seven years. President George W. Bush promised then that peace agreements between the Palestinians and Israelis would be signed before the end of his presidential term, that is, by the end of this year. But despite the enthusiasm of both Abbas and Olmert, the talks have stalled and Washington is worried.
The Israeli media are writing that the United States is interested in the sides' reaching an intermediate agreement before Bush's visit to Israel in May. Half a year after Annapolis would be a pleasing milestone at which to announce the results of America's latest peacemaking efforts. The celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary would be another wonderful excuse to announce progress at the talks. The signing of a framework agreement, or a memo on mutual understanding mentioning all key issues of the future settlement, would thus be very useful for Washington. It is quite possible that at their hasty meetings Abbas and Olmert discussed the details of the U.S.-required document.
But even if the sides come to terms, or they will have to compromise under U.S. pressure, this is not likely to shorten the road to peace agreements or the establishment of a Palestinian state. Such agreements have failed to come to anything in the past.
An exchange of messages on mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993 paved the way to bilateral talks, which produced a declaration on principles of settlement. The document abounded in details, but passed over the most sensitive issues - recognition of Palestine's independence, the destiny of Palestinian refugees and the final status of Jerusalem.
An attempt to find a compromise on these problems in 2000 caused a collapse of the peace process. It was only in Annapolis in 2007 that the sides decided to set up commissions to discuss all the contentious issues without exception. Yet not a single document mentions what these questions are, and Washington would like to have them specified. This would signify a substantial step on the road to peace.
The question is how many years will be required to switch from words to deeds. In 1993, a declaration of intent could be viewed as a breakthrough and give rise to hopes. The same is not true today, after the past 15 years have shown the huge gap between intentions and their implementation.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "It seems that the direct talks between Olmert and Abbas are going well in the sense that they are ready to continue contacts and a search for solutions but both are seriously restricted by their domestic problems." Few high-ranking politicians have described the events in the Middle East as bluntly as Lavrov.
Abbas and Olmert are rushing for a reason, and not simply to please Washington with reports on progress in the talks. Both politicians want to reach compromise before their voters become disenchanted with them. They must not only come to terms with each other, but must also persuade their political opponents and the public to accept their compromise. Time and the situation are not on their side.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
