[WCUSP] Fwd: Fw: Resources on Annapolis Conference

[Odile Hugonot Haber]

----- Original Message -----
From: US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
To: watercolorbarb3 at sbcglobal.net
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:11 PM
Subject: Resources on Annapolis Conference






Resources on the Annapolis Conference


The U.S.-hosted Israeli-Palestinian peace conference is due to be held
in Annapolis on November 26.  The US Campaign has written a fact sheet
and talking points to help frame the issues, give a sense of what is
as stake, as well as to describe likely political outcomes and what
U.S. policy should be toward Palestine/Israel.

To download the US Campaign's fact sheet on the Annapolis conference,
click here.  See below for talking points on the conference by US
Campaign Steering Committee member Phyllis Bennis.




UFPJ Talking Points #53




Middle East Talks in Annapolis:Photo-Op or Talk-Fest



By Phyllis Bennis


Institute for Policy Studies


15 November 2007









** There is one thing certain about the international (or regional or
bilateral) Middle East peace conference (or meeting or get-together)
called by Condoleezza Rice (or George Bush or Elliott Abrams) for
November (or maybe December): it's going to be held in Annapolis,
Maryland (probably).






**   Rice's sudden renewal of interest in and commitment to a new
Middle East "peace process" has two main goals: buying support from
Arab regimes for Washington's war in Iraq and escalating threats
against Iran, and providing a photo-op to restore Rice's tarnished
legacy.






**The agenda for the talks has not yet been finalized, but it will not
include the goal of reversing Israeli occupation and dispossession and
ending Israel's discriminatory apartheid policies.






**Because of U.S.-Israeli control of the agenda, "success" in
Annapolis will depend on whether the Palestinian leadership can be
coerced to sign on to a U.S.-Israeli text that many Palestinians will
view as further abandonment of Palestinian national goals, and many in
international civil society will see as violations of international
law and human rights. There are serious questions whether the meeting
as currently envisioned will be convened at all because of Palestinian
refusal to accept U.S.-backed Israeli preconditions.






**With the U.S.-Israeli-led international boycott remaining intact,
the conference is unlikely to lead to any even short-term improvement
in the humanitarian crisis exploding across Gaza.



*****





There is serious doubt about even the official viability of the
conference.Ten days from the anticipated opening, invitations have not
been issued (because Arab governments and even the Palestinian
leadership have not so far agreed to U.S.-Israeli terms), an agenda
has not been announced, and no preliminary statement of goals and/or
principles has been agreed to. Palestinian officials have so far - at
least publicly - rejected at least some of Israel's preconditions.






Besides her urgent need to update her legacy (which is currently that
of the person who stood before the world at the United Nations and
announced "we don't want a ceasefire yet" as Israeli jets bombarded
Lebanon in summer 2006), Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urgently
needs to win flagging Arab government support for the Bush
administration's failing war and occupation in Iraq and its escalating
mobilization against Iran.While most Arab governments remain quite
happy to join the U.S. crusade, their people do not share support for
the occupation of Iraq or for the anti-Iranian fervor now ascendant in
Washington. As a result, the unpopular and often unstable Arab regimes
(absolute monarchies, family dynasties and military regimes
masquerading as democracies) must provide some kind of concession for
the Arab rulers to pacify their restive populations. The latest
version is to offer a high-profile (however low the results)
diplomatic show aimed at allowing Arab governments to announce that
the U.S. is now helping to give the Palestinians a state. As the New
York Times described it, "now the United States is mired in Iraq and
looking for a way to build good will among Arab allies."






The Bush administration apparently anticipated that Arab governments,
at the highest levels, would welcome invitations to Annapolis. But so
far, even Jordan and Egypt, the two Arab governments with full
diplomatic relations with Israel, have hesitated, and Saudi Arabia has
remained unconvinced. Even if the Arab governments agree to
participate, they may send low- to mid-level officials, without the
political clout - and photo-op value - of kings and prime ministers.






The stated U.S. goal for the Annapolis meeting is to realize a
two-state solution. But in fact, if the conference takes place at all,
the result will be to continue the approach of the long-moribund 2003
"Roadmap to Peace."It will, at most, provide a high-visibility launch
of a new edition of the same Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" that
has failed so many times before:a process based on acceptance of
Israeli dominance over Palestinian lives and territory. Its real goal
will be to create something that the U.S. can anoint as an
"independent Palestinian state," while leaving largely unchallenged
Israeli strategic, military, and economic domination over the entire
area of Israel-Palestine.






The meeting's agenda will not be based on what international law, as
well as Palestinian and global public opinion, requires for a just,
lasting and comprehensive settlement of the conflict:an end to Israeli
occupation and settlement projects, realization of the Palestinians'
rights of self-determination and return, and an end to Israeli
discrimination and apartheid policies.






If the U.S.-Israeli goals for Annapolis are realized, they would
probably lead to the following "two-state solution" results:





Borders


A Palestinian "state" would be announced on a series of non-contiguous
truncated Bantustan-like cantons comprising something less than 50% of
the West Bank plus Gaza.Israel might, with great fanfare, charitably
"adjust" very slightly the current route of the Apartheid Wall to
seize slightly less land that the current route (which Israeli Foreign
Minister Tsipi Livni earlier announced would be the basis for any
border).All of the West Bank's major water aquifers will remain on the
Israeli side of the Wall.





Settlements


All the major West Bank settlement blocs would remain intact on the
Israeli side of the Wall, leaving between 180,000 and 200,000 of the
current 250,000 West Bank settlers in place. With great fanfare most
of the 105 small symbolic "outpost" settlements constructed since
2001, which together house only about 2000 settlers, will be
dismantled.The entire Jordan Valley would remain in Israeli hands. In
exchange, Palestinians would be offered a "land swap" which would
almost certainly involve a significantly smaller amount of land, of
far less arability and viability.





Refugees


The Palestinian right of return, codified not only in general
international law but specifically in UN resolution 194 (1949), has
already been officially rejected by Israel but also by the United
States, in the Bush-Sharon letter exchange of April 2004. Israel's
Annapolis agenda plans to reassert that rejection though a demand that
the Palestinians accept language recognizing the "Jewish character" of
Israel, or accepting the definition of Israel as "the state of the
Jewish people" as opposed to a state of its own citizens.So far
Palestinian officials have indicated they will not accept that
language, which Israeli Prime Minister Olmert says is a precondition
to any negotiations. The rejection of the right of return will be
further entrenched by an Israeli "offer" to Palestinian refugees the
privilege of "returning" to the erstwhile new "Palestinian state,"
rather than the right to return to their actual home territory inside
what is now Israel.





Jerusalem


International law (UN Security Council resolution 181, which divided
Palestine into what was supposed to become a Jewish and an Arab state)
calls for Jerusalem to belong to neither state, but rather to be a
"separate body" under international jurisdiction. Virtually no
governments (not even the U.S.) recognize Israel's annexation of
occupied Arab East Jerusalem, and numerous UN resolutions have
reaffirmed that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. The Israeli
settlements in East Jerusalem (known as neighborhoods, not
settlements) include over 200,000 Israeli settlers, and they will
remain in Israeli hands. The Israeli position in Annapolis will call
for continuing Israeli control of all of Jerusalem, with some kind of
Israeli-controlled "autonomy" for Palestinian neighborhoods and parts
of the Old City's Muslim shrines.





If the U.S.-Israeli agenda for Annapolis succeeds with an official
Palestinian imprimatur, the already reduced legitimacy of the
Palestinian Authority could diminish further, and the existing
Palestinian political crisis, especially the Fatah-Hamas divide, could
be seriously exacerbated.It is important to remember that that the
U.S. as well as Israel bear significant responsibility for the
divisions, tensions and violence inside the Palestinian polity. In his
leaked confidential report, former UN representative to the so-called
Quartet, Peruvian diplomat Alvaro de Soto stated directly that "the
U.S. clearly pushed for a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas - so
much so that, a week before Mecca [the Saudi-brokered unity agreement
between the two factions], the U.S. envoy declared twice in an envoys
meeting in Washington how much 'I like this violence,' referring to
the near-civil war that was erupting in Gaza in which civilians were
being regularly killed and injured, because 'it means that other
Palestinians are resisting Hamas'."






The talks in Annapolis will likely not even address the current
humanitarian (as well as political) crisis currently ravaging the 1.6
million people of Gaza. The U.S.-Israeli-led international boycott of
Gaza, as well as Israel's designation of Gaza as an "enemy entity"
will remain in place.Israel's restrictions on the supply of fuel and
electricity to Gaza have already began to bite; with electricity
supplies down the availability of fresh water is diminishing, and the
declining stocks of transport fuel are expected to reach crisis point
some time in the next few days. New U.S. aid to the Palestinians
recently proposed by the Bush administration remains stalled in
Congress pending "success" at Annapolis; in any case, that aid is
almost entirely limited to support, especially military/security
assistance, for the Fatah-led government in Ramallah, with virtually
nothing designated for the desperately impoverished Gaza Strip.


________________________________





Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and
serves on the steering committee of the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli
Occupation.She is author of Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli
Conflict: A Primer.  To sign up to receive these talking points and
other occasional posts directly, go to www.ips-dc.org and click on the
"Stay Connected" button on the right-hand side - then select the New
Internationalism Project (and any others you find interesting.)

US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation

DONATE | SUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE

­