Hillel Halkin on Annapolis in November

Hillel Halkin writes that the November meeting in Annapolis between Olmert and Abbas is doomed to failure because negotiating and deadlines do not mix because the deadline itself becomes a weapon "to bludgeon the other into submission". He goes on to say:

This is a tactic that the Palestinians are now using in regard to the planned conference in Annapolis — and not once, but twice.

Instead, writes Halkin, time--and lots of it--is exactly what is needed. Why?

The fact of the matter is that, in terms of reaching an agreement that will last, unlimited time is precisely what both Israel and the Palestinians need to have. Time — 40 years of it since the 1967 war — already has done a great deal to help resolve the conflict between them: The gaps on numerous issues have narrowed from great to small less because of specific negotiations over them than because in the course of these years Israelis and Palestinians have gradually been forced to give up many of their cherished illusions, to understand their strengths and limitations better, to assess how much punishment they are able or prepared to take, to distinguish between what is possible and what is not, to realize where the other side can afford to compromise and where it can't, and slowly to let public opinion in their respective communities come to the same conclusions. [Emphasis added]

I wish that Halkin were right, but if he were--would Abbas be making the kinds of demands he is now making? After all, how often have we heard that Israel has to make "painful concessions"? What--if anything--have we heard from Abbas to indicate that he sees November in Annapolis as a time to make concessions, as opposed to a 'going out of business sale'.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hillel Halkin.