Archives

Why the Annapolis talks matter

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Nov 29, 2007

Above: a basketball court in Jerusalem

I’ve learned from my naiveté over the Iraq war, so let me state upfront: The Annapolis talks toward peace in the Middle East could be a PR gimmick, a joke, a ruse, a farce, a choose-your-fav-adjective that translates into “abject failure.”

But maybe, just maybe…

Here’s why the Annapolis negotiations can matter. Given that Iraq has blown up in President Bush’s face, Annapolis amounts to his last go at a modest foreign policy legacy. If anything meaningful is achieved through these talks, Bush will score bragging rights about what he accomplished and what Clinton didn’t. You know that matters.

With or without Bush’s self-interest, here’s why Annapolis should matter. Ever since Yasser Arafat’s death, I’ve heard Palestinian youth express their willingness — sometimes bordering on eagerness — to accept a two-state solution for the sake of getting on with their lives.

I remember visiting An-Najah University in Nablus, the heart of the West Bank, in 2005. “Now that Arafat is gone,” announced one of the students, “it is time to accept the state of Israel.”

“Wait,” I blurted. “You mean the Jewish state of Israel?”

He rolled his eyes in lieu of a “Duh.” Then he explained. “Look, of course we want the occupation to end. But we are also human beings with dreams and hopes for the future. We know that to reach our dreams as individuals, we have to find ways to co-exist peacefully with the Jews, with Israel.”

He made that statement in front of other students, any one of whom could have disagreed in order to defend the honor of the liberation struggle. But with Arafat buried, they finally felt the freedom to speak their truths. Like university students around the world, these kids imagined using their education to tap their talents “as individuals.”

I immediately picked up on the phrase “as individuals.” It represented a stark break from tribal identity. It meant that they’d had enough of being lumped by their leaders into some amorphous collective that stifled their unique voices.

A year later, I got the same message from different Palestinian students. We met at a roundtable of Middle East youth organized by the World Economic Forum. The Palestinian delegation complained bitterly that their own politicians treated them as “suspect” and “deviant.” Innovative ideas, they said, are branded “dangerous” by “inaccessible” elders.

Then came this bombshell: “We cannot keep blaming the Israelis for our problems. We all know that opinions in our Arab societies are determined by family loyalties instead of reason. My brother and I against my cousin; my cousin, brother and I against an external threat.”

Once again, nobody argued with his point. Not because they weren’t capable of arguing (you should have seen the Saudi girls rip into the guys at the table), but because everyone understood that true liberation happens once individuals are allowed to succeed on their own terms. That means ending two occupations — one by Israeli soldiers, and the other by Palestinian oligarchs whose status is made untouchable by a conflict without conclusion.

In short, for a new generation of Palestinians, regional peace is a pre-condition of personal growth. They’re not turning their back on community. Rather, they’re desperate to displace the tribal mentality that spawns intra-communal violence.

Amnesty International recently exposed the civilian abuses that Palestinian representatives are inflicting on their society. Do you get why the youth of that society deserve to define the future for themselves? These are the stakes of the Annapolis talks.