The Global Research website has posted an open letter from Francis A. Boyle, an attorney who helped advise the Palestinian team at the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference. (The Palestinians participated as part of the Jordanian delegation because Israel refused at the time to deal with the PLO.)

“Nov 23, 2007

My Dear Palestinian Friends:

As you can see from the US Government’s list of Invitees to the Annapolis Conference, it has only invited the Palestinian Authority, not the PLO. But only the PLO has the authority under international law to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian People and the State of Palestine. That is why the Chairman of the PLO Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Agreement in the name of the PLO. The Palestinian Authority has no authorization under international law to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian People, let alone the State of Palestine, whose Provisional Government is the PLO Executive Committee. Indeed, an entire series of UN General Assembly Resolutions have made it clear that only the PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People. Hence this delegation of the Palestinian Authority to the Annapolis Conference has no legal authority under international law to conclude anything on behalf of the Palestinian People, let alone the State of Palestine. I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to bring this matter to the attention of the Palestinian People around the world.

Thank you.

Francis A. Boyle

The open letter written by Francis A. Boyle is posted here.

The Global Research website describes him as “Professor of International Law and Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations and His Excellency Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi (1991-1993)”.

While it is true that the PA and not the PLO has been invited to the Annapolis event, it is also the case that the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wears both hats — he is the elected (January 2005) President of the Palestinian Authority that was created by the Oslo Accords negotiated between Israel and the PLO. And, he was also selected as Yasser Arafat’s successor to head the PLO.

The draft of the document [Palestinian preferred term] or statement [Israeli preferred term] that has been negotiated by teams of Israelis and Palestinians in advance of the Annapolis meeting [see Palestine-Mandate post here.] says that “it is being drafted by the representatives of the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, represented respectively by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas in his capacity as Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and President of the Palestinian Authority”…

“…As the saying goes: One fool throws a stone into the water, a dozen wise men cannot retrieve it. Once the ‘meeting’ had been announced, it became an important enterprise. The experts of all parties started to work frantically on the undefined event, each trying to steer it in the direction which would benefit them the most … The three poker players are going to sit down together, pretending to start the game, while none of them has a cent to put on the table …
First the participants were to deal with the ‘core issues’. Then it was announced that a weighty declaration of intentions was to be adopted. Then a mere collection of empty phrases was proposed. Now even that is in doubt. Not one of the three leaders is still dreaming of an achievement. All they hope for now is to minimize the damage – but how to get out of a situation like this?

“As usual, our side is the most creative at this task. After all, we are experts in building roadblocks, walls and fences. This week, an obstacle larger than the Great Wall of China appeared. Ehud Olmert demanded that, before any negotiations, the Palestinians ‘recognize Israel as a Jewish state’. He was followed by his coalition partner, the ultra-right Avigdor Liberman, who proposed staying away from Annapolis altogether if the Palestinians do not fulfill this demand in advance. Let’s examine this condition for a moment: The Palestinians are not required to recognize the state of Israel. After all, they have already done so in the Oslo agreement – in spite of the fact that Israel has yet to recognize the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own based on the Green Line borders. No, the government of Israel demands much more: the Palestinians must now recognize Israel as a ‘Jewish state’.

“Does the USA demand to be recognized as a ‘Christian’ or ‘Anglo-Saxon state’? Did Stalin demand that the US recognize the Soviet Union as a ‘Communist state’? Does Poland demand to be recognized as a ‘Catholic state’, or Pakistan as an ‘Islamic state’? Is there any precedent at all for a state to demand the recognition of its domestic regime? Te demand is ridiculous per se. But this can easily be shown by analysis ad absurdum.

“What is a ‘Jewish state’? That has never been spelled out. Is it a state with a majority of Jewish citizens? Is it ‘the state of the Jewish people’ – meaning the Jews from Brooklyn, Paris and Moscow? Is it ‘a state belonging to the Jewish religion’ – and if so, does it belong to secular Jews as well? Or perhaps it belongs only to Jews under the Law of Return – i.e. those with a Jewish mother who have not converted to another religion? These questions have not been decided. Are the Palestinians required to recognize something that is the subject of debate in Israel itself?

“According to the official doctrine, Israel is a ‘Jewish and democratic state’.  What should the Palestinians do if, according to democratic principles, some day my opinion prevails and Israel becomes an ‘Israeli state’ that belongs to all its citizens – and to them alone? (After all, the US belongs to all its citizens, including Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, not to mention ‘Native-Americans’.)

“The sting is, of course, that this formula is quite unacceptable to Palestinians because it would hurt the million and a half Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. The definition ‘Jewish state’ turns them automatically into – at best – second class citizens. If Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues were to accede to this demand, they would be sticking a knife in the backs of their own relatives. Olmert & Co. know this, of course. They are not posing this demand in order to get it accepted. They pose it in order that it not be accepted. By this ploy they hope to avoid any obligation to start meaningful negotiations”…

With all due deference to the great, the very great, Uri Avnery, three comments here:
(1) It is clearly true that there are differing “visions” in Israel about what is a Jewish State. The Palestinians are not obliged to say they prefer one, or the other. That is up to the Jewish citizens of Israel to decide. I wish it would be de-linked from the very ugly issue of numbers — from “demography”. In my view, this would remove any further necessity for anxious and fearful Israelis to fantasize about population transfer, or worse. And, if Israel then acts as though being a Jewish state means it can expel all non-Jews who are its citizens and residents, it will not only have international public opinion to deal with (something to which Israel has been exceedingly sensitive), it will also have international law. This will not happen. The Palestinians could, moreover, explicitly seek international guarantees that this will not happen — and those international guarantees would almost certainly then be forthcoming.

(2) As to Avnery’s suggestion that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would suddenly mean that Israel’s 1.25 million Arab citizens would then consequently become second class citizens — well, I can only say that this is the case already, and has been so since 1948. It is a problem that Israel NGOs and civil society have been increasingly attempting to address in a very concerted way over the past year or so.

(2a) While, as Avnery says, it is doctrine that Israel is (both) a Jewish and democratic state, it is not law.  The proclamation of the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948 says only that Israel will be a Jewish state.

(3) The Palestinians have recognized Israel since well before the Oslo Accords. The Palestinians have also already recognized Israel as a Jewish State. This was officially done in the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, which recognized UN General Assembly Resolution 181 that partitioned the British Mandate of Palestine into two states — one Jewish and one Arab.

The Kol Israel story also reported that “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert planned to convene the Israeli negotiating team headed by Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni at his residence Saturday night as part of preparations for the planned Annapolis peace summit. Senior officials and advisors from the prime minister’s office, foreign ministry and defense ministry are expected to take part. A Kol Yisrael reporter says the consultations will address gestures towards the Palestinians … ”

http://reka.iba.org.il/.

“I went to a panel discussion at the US Institute of Peace yesterday on the topic of ‘Constructing an Effective Ceasefire’. Now, I know that what the Palestinians and the Bushites are hoping for from the upcoming “Annapolis” meeting is something of considerably greater impact than merely a ceasefire. Indeed, the PA still avers it is insistent on tangible and monitorable progress towards the final peace agreement with Israel that is, surely, the desire of the vast majority of the people in the world. The government of Israel– consistent with many years of foot-dragging now– wants to move much slower than that. (That foot-dragging has allowed government-subsidized Israeli colonial corporations to implant large numbers of illegal colonies inside the occupied Palestinian territories. Coincidence, or what?) But still, even though I recognize there are differences between a ceasefire and a final peace agreement, I thought it would be good to trek along to USIP and catch up with some state of the art in negotiations theory.

[The two speakers at this conference were Dr. Ranabir Samaddar, head of the Calcutta Research Group, and Nita Yawanarajah, "a staff member of the Policy Planning and Mediation Support Unit, at the UN's Department of Political Affairs, described as 'involved in UN negotiations and assessments of ceasefires in the Balkans and Sudan and ...developing guidelines for ceasefire negotiations'."]

Cobban wrote: “Both took a cool, analytical look at what makes peace negotiations (in general, and not just those aiming at temporary ceasefires) effective. Both looked dispassionately at the political components of successful peace negotiations. Samaddar noted, for example, that in government-insurgent conflicts, the governments have a strong interest in using the ceasefire to bring about the complete demilitarization of the insurgent side without opening up any of the insurgents’ grievances, while the insurgents seek strongly to use the ceasefire to get their political issues onto the table without, if possible, disarming. Nothing new there. (Except perhaps to the people across in the US State Department who continue to parrot the Israeli line that all of Israel’s opponents need to disarm completely– at both the military and the ideological levels– before they can even be admitted to any negotiation.) A successful negotiation would, the two panelists said, be one that laid out and won agreement to measurable, monitored steps being taken in parallel by each of the parties, so that neither would end up feeling taken advantage of by the negotiating process itself…

Helena Cobban’s post on the discussion at the conference continued: ” ‘[T]he prospects for peace are harmed if the government side insists too hard on the rebels’ demilitarization at the very beginning’, Dr. Samaddar underlined at one point. He also judged that governments frequently seem to have a self-serving and unhelpful understanding of why the rebels in any situation have accepted a ceasefire. ‘It is a queer understanding’, he said. ‘They frequently think that the rebels have agreed only because they are weak … And so instead of listening to the rebels’ grievances, the governments use the ceasefire to try to drive home a military advantage over the rebels. But that doesn’t build peace’…

“But the most telling moments came when both he and Yawanarajah laid stress on the fact that, to be successful, a peace negotiation requires that both sides are experiencing a ‘mutually hurting stalemate’. In question time, I asked Yawanarajah whether, in view of her analysis– which was considerably longer and more sophisticated than I’ve had time to describe here– she thought that the negotiators in ‘Annapolis’ had any hope of success… Particularly in view of the fact that you very evidently don’t have the situation of a mutually hurting stalemate there. (A feature of the Palestine-Israel conflict that I have noted several times in recent years, including in my comments last year about sipping lattes in elegant malls in North Tel Aviv.) Yawanarajah’s response– which she stressed she was giving in her personal capacity as an analyst and not as a UN official– was that they ‘didn’t seem to have a hope in hell’ of succeeding. H’mmm…

Cobban continued: “In her earlier presentation, she had noted that this whole question of ‘needing a mutually hurting stalemate’ raises thorny ethical questions. Should we, indeed, seek to impose hurt on the Israelis so that they would be hurting as much as the Palestinians? Probably not. However, I would also note the following: (1. ) To equalize the amount of ‘hurt’ each side is suffering, we could also seek to decrease the amount of hurt being intentionally inflicted by the Israelis and the US on the Palestinians– in both Gaza and the West Bank. This route should certainly be followed. The total economic lockdown imposed on the Palestinians is anti-humanitarian and quite possibly illegal under international law; and it should be ended. (2.) The US, and much of the rest of what some people claim is an ‘international community’, is meanwhile actively involved in both maintaining the level of harm being inflicted on Palestinians and in providing continuing lovely benefits to Israel, through generous aid packages, trade preferences, etc etc. (3.)  To cut back on those generous benefits would not involve the imposition of any real harm on the Israelis.  They could still have a fairly nice lifestyle…

Cobban concluded: “Finally, if anyone thinks that a party that has been actively colluding with Israel’s anti-Palestinian project for many years now could realistically be considered to have the moral authority and the neutrality required to act as lead negotiator on this issue, I would love to hear their arguments. Go on, Condi: Persuade me! Until now, though, I see neither morality nor realism in the ‘Annapolis’ set-up”.

See the full post by Helena Cobban on 10 November here.

But, Kol Israel Radio reports this morning that Israeli officials have been informed that Rice has no plans to travel here in the next few days.

In what may seem like a contradiction — as Rice’s presence was supposed to be supportive in helping Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to overcome their differences — this is being taken as a confirmation of reports this week that progress between the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators has not been sufficient.

It is one more signal that the Annapolis peace conference (or “meeting”) may be held later than reported.

But, as Rice indicated yesterday, she expects that the Annapolis event will take place.

QUESTION: We’ve seen reports that it looks like now the Annapolis meeting is going to be a day [just one day]. That’s what’s being reported.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let’s wait to — first, to call it; and secondly, to invite people; and then to schedule it.

QUESTION: So it’s not even safe to say that it’s definitely happening?

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, it’s going to happen.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY RICE: But look, we’ll look at the scheduling for it. I don’t expect it to be going on for several days, most certainly.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY RICE: It’s, after all, an opportunity to launch a process, not to try and conclude it at Annapolis.

QUESTION: So now, (inaudible). How — do you have a sense of now what you’re hoping to get out of it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think that when Prime Minister Olmert spoke to the Saban Forum a couple of days — a couple of weeks ago, a week ago — it only seems like longer — that he made the clearest indication of how that meeting can be used, which is to — I think he said use it as a springboard to launch continuous, ongoing negotiations toward the establishment of a two-state
solution. And so that’s what I expect it to do.

QUESTION: What would be the implications if the Saudis do not participate?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, again, I don’t want to speculate about participation. It’s obviously very important that all key actors at this point look at what they can do to support the bilateral track that Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas have undertaken.

QUESTION: So you said it would definitely happen. It’s not definite yet that the Saudis will be there?

SECRETARY RICE: We haven’t sent any invitations, so we haven’t expected any answers …

QUESTION: I would say even amongst people who are inclined to support a two-state solution in the Jewish community, the biggest criticism we’ve been hearing, or concern about the upcoming conference, is that given the large gap between Israeli and Palestinians’ positions and expectations that there’s a real fear that, like in 2000, some sort of — the perception of a failed
meeting actually runs a risk of launching a new wave of violence that would create a situation that’s worse than the current status quo. What do you say to those people?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first, I’ve been out there. I’ve been talking to the parties a lot. I think their views of what Annapolis can do are converging. And I think this focuses much more now on the day after, as Foreign Minister Livni had called it, because the day after is really when you have to get down to the business of trying to come to an agreement. They’re not going to create the Palestinian state at Annapolis. They’re not going to create it four days after Annapolis. That is work that has to be done in detailed, ongoing, continuous negotiations. And so Annapolis is for
the parties to come together, to have the international community launch them, to have an opportunity for Prime Minister Blair to talk about what he is doing to build the capacity of Palestinians so that they could govern a state, I would hope for the Arabs to make clear that they are prepared to both support the Palestinians and to reach out to the Israelis, and to have some confidence-building measures that are based on phase one obligations of the roadmap to show that this is all serious. I think that’s where we are converging. Now, there was an earlier time when there was a question about whether their joint document was going to try to have the basics of the deal. I think it’s not surprising that when people recognize that there’s going to be a
day after, they start to focus on the day after, not the day of.

QUESTION: But do you — but in terms specifically of the concern that some sort of perception of failure could actually trigger violence, do you think that that’s — or destabilize the situation for President Abbas? I mean, do you think that is a legitimate concern?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, no one can afford failure here. I’ve said failure isn’t an option. But not acting is failure in these circumstances because not acting when you have a Palestinian partner who is dedicated against violence and against terrorism and who’s struggling against an alternative view for the Palestinians, not acting I think has much, much more significant risk
than acting.

QUESTION: Right. You’ve mentioned pretty firmly Israeli perspectives during this discussion, but also saying there’s a convergence. Is your sense that the Arab parties and the Palestinians are now accepting Olmert’s view of what this conference needs to be?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I heard President Abbas talking about the launch of negotiations. I think we still have some work to do in terms of how do you characterize those negotiations. But it’s no secret to anyone that the key here at Annapolis is that once Annapolis is over they need — the parties need to have the sense from the international community that they are going to
be supported through what is going to be a difficult process of coming to a two-state solution. They’re going to have to resolve a lot of issues that are historic, a lot of issues that have not ever been resolved before, a lot of issues about which they have barely talked for the last six years. And so I think people know that that’s going to be hard.

I do think that there is some hope on both sides that there will be some fulfillment of roadmap phase one obligations so that the parties know that they’re both serious.

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: One of those obligations is on — the Palestinians cite often as the settlement issue. And I wanted to know if — have you — what kind of efforts from the Israelis have you gotten on that issue and are you satisfied with Israel’s cooperation?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, American — the American position on this is clear, which is the roadmap position that settlement activity is not consistent with the roadmap. And what I’ve heard the — but I — but there are a lot of other elements of the roadmap as well, including for the Palestinians to dismantle the infrastructure of terror. Now, frankly, some of the things that they’ve done recently in terms of the closing down of charities, the freezing of bank accounts — this is a very good start. The security operations that are going on in Nablus are a good start. So both sides are going to need to carry out their obligations, and the United States will be pressing both”.

Transcribed by the U.S. State Department

The Haaretz story says that “Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to a new plan that skips over the first stage of the road map – eliminating terror and dismantling the settlements – according to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in his appearance before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Since the unveiling of the road map in 2002, Israel has been opposed to negotiations on a final-status agreement before the first stage of the road map was implemented. However last week the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams agreed that following the Annapolis summit scheduled for the end of the month, negotiations on a final-status arrangement would begin. The agreement states that if a final-status accord is reached, it would be subject to the implementation of the road map by the parties. Israel and the Palestinians entered an intensive stage of the negotiations on Monday in a bid to formulate a declaration to be presented at the Annapolis conference. The negotiating teams, headed by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Ahmad Qureia for the Palestinian Authority, met in Jerusalem and were to meet again Tuesday. U.S. Secretary of State Condolleezza Rice will decide based on the progress of the parties whether to come to the region again next week.

The Haaretz article reports that Olmert told the Knesset committee that “time was working against the diplomatic process, and so ‘we will try to reach an understanding on all elements of the solution. But we will not have to implement anything before the fulfillment of the first stage of the road map‘, he added. Olmert said there would be a period of time, which he called a ‘buffer zone’, between the agreement and its implementation. ” ‘If stage one of the road map is implemented – if the Palestinians dismantle terror infrastructure – then and only then will Israel have to implement the agreement’.”

From the Palestinian side, however, anything that looks like a delaying tactic — while Israeli settlement policies continue to be implemented — will cause a very big problem.

The Associated Press has reported that participants in the Knesset meeting, which was a closed session, say that Olmert said: “I hope these negotiations won’t take more than a year, but we won’t be committed to any target date”.    The AP report that Olmert says the negotiations to be launched after Annapolis could last a year or more is here.

Haaretz added that “Olmert and Prime Minister Tzipi Livni appeared at different Knesset forums on Monday, and explained that the Annapolis summit would last for one day … Government sources in Jerusalem said the summit would begin on November 26, with meetings of the foreign ministers in Annapolis. That evening President George W. Bush will host Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for a dinner at the White House. The next day, Olmert and Abbas will speak at the formal opening of the conference, which would last a few hours. According to Olmert, ‘the starting point of the negotiations will be the recognition that Israel is the state of the Jewish people”. The end point of the talks, Olmert said, would be the declaration of the end of the conflict and demands. Olmert plans to bring the agreement reached at the end of the negotiations to the United Nations Security Council, the U.S. and the Quartet, to ensure the widest possible international support. Olmert also told the Knesset committee that the U.S. has not prohibited Israel from conducting talks with Syria, but rather is asking in another way that Israel avoid such talks. ‘A formula can be found for Syria to participate in the conference’, Olmert told the committee. ‘I believe that the Annapolis summit could, under certain conditions, bring about a renewal of talks with Syria when the time comes, and that is of value for Israel’.”
The Haaretz account with more details of Olmert’s testimony to a Knesset committee yesterday is here.

Fayyad also said: “The most important thing now regarding Gaza is to end the siege”. Ma’an also reported that with regard to the Gaza border crossings, Fayyad said, “We are ready to take over these border crossings but Israel has refused and is trying to spread rumours that it is the Ramallah government who has refused to take control of these crossings so Israel can exonerate itself.”

Fayyad told the journalists and editors that “My government is working hard to arrest those who create security problems. We are going to repair all eight of the security buildings destroyed by the Israeli army. We must exercise our authority not only regarding weapons but with the courts and judicial system.”

Ma’an also said that “Fayyad seemed pessimistic about Israel and his dealings with them. He gave many examples of how Israel is trying to prove that his government is weak. He gave an example the Israeli army withdrawing from Nablus and despite their agreement the Israeli army continued their incursions and targeted assassinations with the intention of damaging the PA. The prime minister said he wasn’t counting on the Annapolis conference and the journalists laughed when he said ‘Nablus for me is more important than Annapolis’.”
The Ma’an report on Fayyad’s roundtable with Palestinian editors and journalists is here.

The Palestinian Authority has expressed outrage and concern that the Israeli Defense Force continues to operate in Nablus between midnight and 6am, during which time the Palestinian security services are supposed to stay indoors. By 9:26 on Tuesday morning, Ma’an reported today, “Israeli forces detained seven Palestinians on Tuesday after several military vehicles raided the city of Nablus in the northern West Bank”.

“Olmert held a meeting on Sunday to discuss the Annapolis summit and the negotiations toward a final-settlement agreement. [Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni, [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak, [and] the chief of staff and the heads of the intelligence services attended the meeting. Olmert told the gathering that immediately at the start of negotiations following the summit, Israel will set a precondition that the Palestinians recognize Israel as ‘a Jewish state’.”

The Haaretz report continued: ” ‘I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state’, Olmert said, thereby accepted the position of Livni and Barak. ‘This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state’. Olmert said he raised the importance of this issue during his talks with European and American officials, and their response had been positive. However, during talks in recent weeks between the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams, the Palestinians refused to include the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state in the shared declaration the teams are preparing, which will be made at Annapolis. This recognition is meant to bolster Israel’s position that rejects the return of Palestinian refugees to areas inside the Green Line – the border before the 1967 Six-Day War
… Meanwhile, despite Palestinian claims that there is a crisis in the talks, Livni and Qureia exchanged drafts of the joint declaration that Israel and the Palestinians are to present at the Annapolis summit. Government officials did not deny reports in recent days that Israel had surprisingly softened its stance on the core issues – particularly on borders and Jerusalem. The prime minister was scheduled to appear before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Monday morning to present the principles that will guide Israel in the negotiations with the Palestinians”.
The Haaretz report on Israeli leaders demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is here.

Meanwhile, here is an excerpt of what U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said in a Sunday interview with George Stephanopolous on ABC Television today (most of the conversation focussed on the situation in Pakistan, then a little bit on Iran, and this came last):

QUESTION: You’ve also been working very hard on the Middle East peace process, gone to the Middle East eight times in the last year, three times in the last two months. And you’re trying to put together at least a preliminary peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, either later this month or early next month. Have the invitations gone out? Will the conference take place?

SECRETARY RICE: Look, the invitations have not gone out. We still expect the conference to take place. The President has said this fall; that means by the end of the year. We’re working very hard with the parties and with the regional actors to prepare the conference. And so we will take our time in preparing the conference, but I have to say that the parties are exhibiting seriousness of purpose.  I think they want to end their conflict.  And if we can, as Prime Minister Olmert said, use Annapolis to launch the negotiations for the establishment of a two-state solution, that will be a very, very good step for the people of Israel, the people of the Palestinian territories and for the international community as a whole.

QUESTION: You said you wanted to include the neighbors of Israel and Palestine.  Does that include Syria?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we’ve not sent any invitations, but we did make clear that it would be likely that members of the Arab Follow-up Committee, the committee that was appointed by the Arab League to follow up on the Arab Peace Initiative — it was originally proposed by the Saudis, this peace initiative — that those members would likely be invited. Syria is a member of that committee. And let me just say something, George. Nobody would even think of trying to hide that there are other tracks that ultimately lead to a comprehensive peace. Now, in this case, the Israeli-Palestinian comprehensive peace — the Israeli-Palestinian track is the most mature. It’s the one that’s moving forward. This meeting is about Israel and the Palestinians. But we understand that ultimately there has to be a comprehensive peace and there has to be progress on the other tracks as well”.

(Transcript or Rice’s remarks was prepared by the U.S. Department of State and sent out by email.)