VZCZCXRO8583
OO RUEHDE RUEHDIR
DE RUEHAD #1944/01 3330819
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 290819Z NOV 07
FM AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0125
RHMFIUU/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHZM/GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1231
RHBVAKS/COMUSNAVCENT

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ABU DHABI 001944 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NEA/ARP; NEA/PPD; NEA/RA; INR/R/MR; PA; INR/NESA; INR/B; 
RRU-NEA 
IIP/G/NEA-SA 
WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE; NSC 
SECDEF FOR OASD/PA 
USCINCCENT FOR POLAD 
LONDON FOR SREEBNY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OIIP KMDR TC
SUBJECT: SPECIAL MEDIA REACTION: ANNAPOLIS (1) 
 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY:  A Lebanese columnist in "Al-Khaleej" writes that wars 
have historically been waged under the umbrella of peace slogans and 
that Annapolis' real objective is to pave the way for wars in Iran, 
Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.  A Jordanian columnist in "Al-Khaleej" 
opines that Arab participation in Annapolis is risky as the outcome 
is most likely futile.  A Palestinian columnist in "Al-Bayan" 
wonders why Arab ministers rushed to participate in Annapolis, 
rather than wait for the U.S. to respond to Syria's call to put the 
Golan Heights on the agenda.  The editorial in "Al-Bayan" believes 
that Israel expects Annapolis to be an opportunity to normalize 
relations with the Arab world.   A columnist in "Al-Khaleej" wonders 
what the follow-up to Annapolis will be (and whether the conference 
has worth without same), and suggests that the conference may be 
only a forum for the West to press Arabs for concessions at a 
sensitive moment.  The editorial in "Al-Khaleej" describes the 
Annapolis conference as a political carnival where all participants 
know that the President will not keep his promises, because he 
canont pressure Israel and neither he nor Israel seriously wants 
results or peace.  End Summary. 
 
 
¶2. Under the headline "Jordanian fears", a Lebanese columnist, Saad 
Mehio, wrote 11/26 in his op-ed in "Al-Khaleej" (circulation 
90,000): 
 
"The Jordanian King fears the ignition of a new Palestinian civil 
war that could lead to an intensive migration of Palestinians to 
Jordan, and thus revive the idea of an alternative Palestinian 
state.  Are these Jordanian fears legitimate?  Definitely yes. 
Annapolis will certainly fail to achieve Palestinian-Israeli peace, 
but who said this was the real objective anyway?  Khaled Mashaal was 
right when he recently said that the real purpose of Annapolis is to 
prepare for wars of domination in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. 
After all, most wars in history have been waged under the umbrella 
of peace slogans!" 
 
 
¶3. Under the headline "Annapolis opportunities and caveats?" a 
Jordanian columnist, Mahmood Al-Remawi, wrote 11/26 op-ed in 
"Al-Khaleej" (circulation 90,000): 
 
"Nobody will be surprised if Annapolis produces a futile outcome; in 
fact, it will be surprising if it produces a significant one.  If 
the outcome is useless, the participating Palestinian and Arab 
parties should blame themselves; they had the choice from the start 
not to respond to a vague occasion..." 
 
"Nevertheless, Arab participation happened and can be described only 
as risky.  It was not associated with successful performance... 
[i.e. conditions that would establish two options:] on the one hand, 
failure, the blame for which would belong to Israel and America; on 
the other hand, the possibility of having the conference produce a 
meaningful outcome and guarantee continuing the political process 
within a short timeframe, through clear mechanisms that would be 
abided by. 
 
 
¶4.  Under the headline "Arabs and Annapolis?" a Palestinian 
columnist, Ahmed Omarabi, wrote   11/26 in his op-ed in Dubai-based 
Arabic daily "Al-Bayan" (circulation 85,000): 
 
 "The Arab ministers sent a request from Syria to Washington to 
include the Golan Heights issue on the Annapolis agenda.  The Syrian 
Foreign Minister said that if Washington's response was positive, 
Syria would participate in the conference.  But the question that 
needs to be raised is: Wouldn't it have been wiser for the Arab 
ministers to wait for the American response before deciding to 
participate in the conference?" 
 
 
¶5.  Under the headline "Far from a message of reassurance and a 
follow-up committee", the 11/26 editorial in Dubai-based Arabic 
daily "Al-Bayan" (circulation 85,000) read: 
 
"The number of conferences has become countless yet their outcomes 
on the ground grow worse and worse: the settlement expansion; the 
wall extension; the intensification of the blockade. We are 
witnessing more incursions, more assassinations and more of these 
 
ABU DHABI 00001944  002 OF 002 
 
 
suffocating policies of "barriers".  This is why Arab and 
Palestinian doubts are in place.  Israel wants Annapolis only as an 
opportunity to normalize [relations with Arabs].  Israeli media and 
officials spoke openly about that; [in fact] what solidified [Arab] 
doubts was that Israel was too manipulative and strong-headed at the 
outset of Annapolis." 
 
 
¶6. Under the headline "What comes after Annapolis?" a columnist, 
Jaafar Mohammed Ahmed, wrote 11/27 in his op-ed in "Al-Khaleej": 
 
"Peace is an Arab option.  Arab solidarity in going to Annapolis 
requires a more important unanimity: unifying visions and positions 
for achieving peace and security in the region, and rejecting any 
further concessions regardless of pressure applied by Western powers 
seeking to gain more concessions at this very sensitive and critical 
stage.   Annapolis comes at a time where Bush is looking desperately 
abroad for any victory to cover his failures in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, to incur gains to the Republican Party, and to accomplish his 
goals before the end of his term.  At last, the fuss about convening 
this conference has ended today as it marks its start; regardless of 
how futile the outcome will be, the important question that jumps to 
mind is this: What comes after Annapolis?" 
 
 
¶7. Under the headline "Annapolis carnival?" the editorial in 
Sharjah-based Arabic daily "Al-Khaleej" 11/27 read: 
 
"The greatest obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state 
is that Israel refuses to return to the borders of 1967, still 
clings to its settlements in the West Bank, works to Judaize the 
city of Jerusalem, continues building the wall that divides 
Palestinian territories, and does not recognize the right of return 
of the Palestinian refugees nor the UN sponsored resolutions.  Bush 
knows all these factors will not allow him to fulfill his promise, 
as he is no longer now in a position to compel Israel to submit to 
what he wants.  Annapolis looks more like a political carnival where 
the Palestinian cause and its participants are presented in 
caricature; [they are convinced] that the American President will 
not seriously abide by his obligations because he cannot and because 
he does not want them converted into reality.  Israel, at the same 
time, does not seriously want to achieve peace because it believes 
that balance of power is the only way to impose [its will on 
others].  What we are afraid of, is that the United States along 
with Israel will try to exploit the [weak] Arab situation and 
squander [ignore/brush aside] the Palestinians." 
 
SISON