Annapolis Scorecard

Below, a more user-friendly version of my time.com instant analysis of the Annapolis conference. As you'll see, I was surprised by the relative success of the meeting and Bush's seeming determination to get something done in his last year in office. The verdict on that will be known in January '09, but for the time being, here's some credit where credit is due:

Mid-East Peace Conference

Caution is advised in judging the peace conference's achievements. But here's a scorecard of how the various players did.

President Bush
He was the biggest surprise. His speech opening the conference was one of the best of his political career, certainly his finest on the Middle East. Discarding the hubris and fantasy of his early Iraq addresses, he asserted America's leadership in ending the region's core conflict through the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush pledged "to devote my effort during my time as President to do all I can," knowing that many in the room have been critical of his lack of any such commitment until now. Bush spoke of the promise — and obligations — of peace for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, and he demonstrated keen awareness of the risks of continuing the present stalemate. "If Palestinian reformers cannot deliver on this hopeful vision," he warned, "then the forces of extremism and terror will be strengthened, a generation of Palestinians could be lost to the extremists, and the Middle East will grow in despair." At last, Bush seems to get it, but whether he follows through remains open to question.

Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice
She gets the Most Valuable Diplomat award. She pulled off a tour de force in getting Bush's nod to probe a risky diplomatic effort despite internal Administration opposition, getting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas talking again during eight shuttles to the region and then setting up the biggest Middle East peace conference, aimed at a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement, ever held on American soil. At the last minute, Rice showed her diplomatic agility by cajoling the Israelis and Palestinians into announcing a "joint understanding" that was more substantive than anybody had expected. The hardest part is certainly still to come, but Rice has defied her critics. She responded to criticism ahead of the meeting by insisting she would do it "my way," and for the results thus far, we can simply say, "Bravo."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
He scored his biggest political success since succeeding the late Yasser Arafat in 2004. Annapolis was crucial to Abbas's survival. Due to frustration over the lack of results in past peace efforts, Abbas lost control over much of his own Fatah group and then took a drubbing at the hands of the fundamentalist Hamas group in last year's parliamentary elections — then, last spring, Hamas seized military control of Gaza. Abbas could be rescued only by a serious revival of the peace process. He has now been offered a lifeline in the form of a one-year window — and unprecedented international support — to achieve a viable Palestinian state through negotiations. Abbas's good intentions are not in question; but his political staying power will remain so.

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
He gets a prize for political courage, because he had the least to gain, short term, in going to Annapolis. Israel is vastly superior to the Palestinians in military strength; its security wall has helped produce a relative lull in terror attacks on Israelis (except those unfortunate enough to live within rocket range of Gaza); his coalition partners had threatened to bring down his government if he made concessions on Jerusalem or Palestinian refugees; and, he faces a personal criminal inquiry into alleged fraud. But Olmert has exhibited wisdom and pragmatism, dating back to 2003 when he publicly acknowledged giving up his dream of a Greater Israel. He said he feared the day when Israel would be faced with a choice: either deny Palestinians a vote and be condemned by the world as an apartheid state, or give Palestinians a vote and lose the Jewish state. Olmert has showed that he has the guts to take on the past. The hope is that by going to Annapolis, he has the courage to take on the future, too.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran
Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly the biggest loser. Having made the cause of Palestinian militancy his own, Ahmadinejad urged that Israel be "wiped off the map." He also stirred international controversy, and exasperated some in his own government, by questioning the fact of the Holocaust. But Iran was left badly isolated when the U.S. managed to bring 49 parties to Annapolis, including Tehran's only real Arab ally, Syria. Ahmadinejad's embarrassment shows. Speaking by phone on the eve of Annapolis to Saudi Arabian King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, he said that he "wished" the Kingdom had boycotted the conference. Then Ahmadinejad's office announced that Iran would hold its own Middle East conference, "within the next week or two." It will take longer than that to know whether the envisioned year of negotiations is going to bear any fruit. But the thing about the Middle East is that today's losers can wind up tomorrow's winners. If Annapolis fails to achieve its promise, Iran may become the biggest victor of them all.

— Scott MacLeod/Cairo