VZCZCXRO9210
PP RUEHROV
DE RUEHAM #4736/01 3331640
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 291640Z NOV 07
FM AMEMBASSY AMMAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1093
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 AMMAN 004736 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NEA/ELA, NEA/PPD, IIP/GNEA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: JO KPAO KMDR
SUBJECT: Jordan Media Reaction to the Annapolis Meeting 
 
 
Editorial Commentary: 
 
¶1.  "Annapolis: Before and After" 
 
Columnist Samih Ma'aitah in the independent, pro-business Arabic 
daily Al-Ghad commented November 29, "There is no need to fear that 
the Annapolis meeting will waste Arab and Palestinian rights. The 
meeting was not required to resolve the Palestinian issue but to 
achieve certain things, including the so-called launch of the final 
negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.  The 
Palestinians and the Israelis wanted the Annapolis meeting to act as 
an umbrella and to legitimize ongoing bilateral negotiations and 
they wanted an Arab and international framework for them....  It is 
not important or expected that the Annapolis meetings would resolve 
the Golan issue, but rather to reorganize alliances, just like what 
happened in 1991 when America launched its first attack on Iraq.... 
As for Hamas that is ruling Gaza, its fear is justified and 
legitimate.  The genuine fear, however, is not from negotiations 
between the Authority and the occupation entity, but from the 
disintegration of Hamas' circle of friends and allies in Damascus 
and Iran.  If Damascus' going to Annapolis means a shift in its 
relations and jump from the Iranian 'titanic', then this would 
definitely create new variables." 
 
¶2.  "Annapolis: Brilliant Success" 
 
Columnist Nahed Hattar in the independent, opposition Arabic daily 
Al-Arab Al-Yawm on November 29 opined, "Did you think that American 
imperialism is a charity organization?  Did you think that Israel is 
a regular country with whom disputes could be negotiated?  If you 
thought that, then you can say that the Annapolis conference failed 
or at least achieved the least requirement: new marathon 
negotiations without references or commitments for one year.  Fine, 
Annapolis was a brilliant success.  Even Syria attended without the 
Golan issue, and all the Arabs sat at Olmert's table.  There are 
negotiations with a new time bomb.  Now that the Palestinians have 
acknowledged Israel, they are required to acknowledge it as a 
'Jewish state', which nullifies the right of return and the legal 
foundation for the Arab citizens of Israel.  The Palestinian 
Authority, which has accepted everything that Arafat rejected before 
he died, is now facing another Israeli request for another 
impossible compromise.  And even when the impossible becomes 
possible in the dark future, the Palestinian negotiators will be 
faced with yet another impossible request, and so on and so forth." 
 
¶3.  "Will Syria's 'Neutralization' Get It Out of the Axis Of Evil?" 
 
Columnist Oraib Rantawi in the pro-government, pro-Palestinian 
Arabic daily Ad-Dustour wrote on November 29, "By going to the 
conference, Syria was not seeking to regain the Golan, but rather it 
was looking to untie the knots of Arab and international isolation 
that have been imposed on it over the past three or four years. 
Relatively speaking, it succeeded in doing that, and in fact one 
could say that Syrian diplomacy is subject for more successes in 
future....  Syria's attendance of the Annapolis conference, despite 
Iran's rejection and its allies' reservations, pushes us to think 
that the tactic of 'neutralizing' Syria is working, if not 
extensively and fully, then gradually." 
 
¶4.  "What Did The Annapolis Conference Achieve?" 
 
Widely-read columnist Fahed Fanek in the leading, government-owned 
Arabic daily Al-Rai commented November 29, "The seven-year freeze on 
the peace process and the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations has been 
interrupted by the Annapolis peace conference, which has not only 
decided to resume negotiations on the Palestinian track, but also 
has decided that the ultimate end of negotiations will be the 
establishment of the Palestinian state before the end of 2008.... 
Once must admit that the conference could be, at the end of the day, 
a success or a failure.  Yet, the possibility of success is present. 
 Boycotting the conference would only eliminate this possibility. 
There is so much that the Palestinian party can gain in the face of 
the occupation and there is nothing to lost, especially since the 
opponents of the conference, led by Iran, are not proposing any 
alternative except waiting, which would only serve the settlements, 
the occupation and the transfer." 
 
¶5.  "Annapolis: A Good Celebration For A Difficult Purpose" 
 
Columnist Nasouh Al-Majali in Al-Rai concluded in a November 29 
column, "A long journey of patience and struggle, as well as 
suffering the Israeli maneuvers, await the Palestinians until the 
end of 2008, the season of reaping as President Bush specified.  The 
Palestinians have not support except pulling in their domestic 
ranks, adhering to their rights, and depending on a united Arab 
position....  a new step has been taken in this big dream and this 
even bigger historical struggle.  We hope it is a promising step, 
despite the fears and dangers that surround it." 
 
¶6.  "Annapolis' Fruits" 
 
 
AMMAN 00004736  002 OF 003 
 
 
Columnist Mohammad Amayreh in Al-Rai wrote on November 29, "No two 
can disagree that the results of the Annapolis conference were 
modest, albeit within what is expected.  The conference did not hold 
any major surprises.  We would not have really needed this 
international demonstration in that beautiful American city had the 
intentions of the Israelis were sound and had there been serious 
movement towards just, comprehensive and lasting solution....  Now 
it seems that matters have gone back to square one despite 
glorifying talk that the negotiations between the Palestinians and 
the Israelis are going to start soon....  There is an impression 
that Bush and Olmert are the only winners of this public relations 
conference.  Bush presented himself as the savior capable of peace 
making, while Olmert appeared as the one concerned for peace.... 
The meeting also achieved more than just press statements and 
speeches.  Arab countries that have never accepted normalization and 
diplomatic relations with Israel attended.  This is a major gain for 
Israel." 
 
¶7.  "From Madrid to Annapolis" 
 
Columnist Hussein Al-Rawashdeh in Ad-Dustour observed on November 
28, "Anyone who reviews the history of Arab-Israeli relations, with 
its wars, treaties, explicit and implicit correspondence, would 
immediately come to the conclusion that Israel will not accept the 
conditions of peace unless it feels that its survival is threatened. 
 This is currently non-existent....  It is sad that the Arabs and 
Palestinians have no other choice or alternative, that they go to 
Annapolis knowing all too well that Tel Aviv is incapable or 
unwilling to pay the cost of peace, that whoever attended the 
conference was quite sufficient for Washington, and that the 
responsibility of liberating Palestine and regaining the Arab rights 
will be postponed to future generations." 
 
¶8.  "Hamas And Annapolis: The Aborted Opposition" 
 
Columnist Oraib Rantawi in Ad-Dustour commented on November 28, "The 
speech rallies and the long petitions that were carried out by Hamas 
against Annapolis will achieve nothing....  Furthermore, Hamas' 
threats and assurances that what comes out of Annapolis will not be 
binding to the Palestinian people are meaningless; in fact, they are 
not worth the ink they are written in.  If the Palestinians and 
Israelis reach an agreement at Annapolis, with the testimony of 
fifty countries and organizations, including Syrian, Hamas' ally, 
then neither Hamas nor any of the other Palestinian organizations 
would be able to turn their backs to it.  These parties would find 
themselves, once again, on the difficult journey of having to cope 
with the new agreements....  We are now seeing an example of what 
extremism does to its people, once they lose their tools and weapons 
and are deprived of their maneuvering spaces." 
 
¶9.  "Annapolis: The Meaning And The Direction" 
 
Columnist Mohammad Abu Rumman in the November 28 edition of Al-Ghad 
concluded, "The Arabs will not return empty-handed from Annapolis, 
but they are going to get or even market only illusions to pass on 
to the Arab public opinion in the current context building up to the 
upcoming Iran battle!  The problem of the Arab moderates is that the 
doors they are knocking on in search of a way out of the current 
desperate situations are closed." 
 
¶10.  "What Is After Annapolis?" 
 
Former Jordanian Ambassador to the United Nations, Hassan Abu 
Ni'meh, in Al-Ghad opined on November 28, "The fact is Annapolis is 
not the last opportunity.  It is not even an opportunity at all. 
The Annapolis meeting was nothing more than another immature attempt 
to adopt crooked foundations.  The hope is that it would be the last 
attempt in this series of failed experiments leading to that time 
when a genuine opportunity is found to discuss the entire 
Arab-Israeli peace issue in line with the principles of 
international law and justice." 
 
¶11.  "Annapolis Meeting: So That The Opportunity Is Not Lost" 
 
Al-Rai's main editorial on November 28 declared, "The Annapolis 
meeting constituted a proper occasion for the Palestinian and 
Israeli parties to present their viewpoints to each other.  The ball 
remains in the court of the United States which has called for that 
meeting and has committed itself - as the U.S. President said 
yesterday - to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state 
living side by side with Israel in mutual peace and security." 
 
¶12.  "The Conference Of The Last Chance" 
 
Chief Editor Taher Odwan in Al-Arab Al-Yawm wrote on November 27, 
"It is an opportunity for the moderate Arabs as much as it is for 
the Israelis.  True, it is a one day conference, but it is the 
headline of a major turning point in the history of the Palestinian 
cause and the Arab-Israeli conflict.  After Annapolis, the 
Palestinians and Israelis will go into continuous negotiations.... 
The Israelis have proven throughout history that they are brilliant 
 
AMMAN 00004736  003 OF 003 
 
 
at gaining time and negotiating for the sake of negotiations.  Here 
comes the role of Rice and Bush.  If the negotiations turn into what 
the Israeli delegation wants, then the last chance for peace will 
collapse.  In this lies the loss of American interests that are 
knee-high in the wars and crises of the Middle East, as well as the 
loss of the Palestinian and Arab moderates.  The Arabs, who have 
quickly abandoned the diplomacy of the Arab initiative in favor of 
Bush and Rice's initiative, cannot afford to miss this last 
opportunity.  This is because it would mean the demise of 
negotiations as a way to liberate the Arab and Palestinian lands and 
the appearance of new pressures in a regional climate that favors 
the forces that believe in armed struggle as the only way to regain 
rights....  The Arabs, and not just the U.S. administration, are 
required to achieve an accomplishment during the Annapolis 
negotiations, at least a rhetoric that is in line with their peace 
initiative.  Otherwise, America and not Israel is the one that is 
occupying the Palestinian and Arab lands with its unlimited 
political, military and economic support for the occupation in Gaza, 
the West Bank, Jerusalem, the Golan and Shaba'a farms." 
 
HALE