As expected the Annapolis meeting did not address the substantive issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians and Israelis expected different things from Annapolis and not surprisingly the Israeli vision triumphed.
Ahmed Qurei, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said: “What we need for a successful meeting in Annapolis is to implement the first phase of the road map.” An Israeli official close to Israeli Prime Minister Olmert said: “Because we can’t agree on the substance of a joint paper, we prefer to say we’re just beginning to negotiate.” (NYT, Nov 12.07). The announcement at Annapolis said that Israelis and Palestinians have reached a “joint understanding” to negotiate a final settlement of their conflict in all its aspects before the end of 2008.
The statement pleased the Israelis who insisted on avoiding any substantive negotiations or commitment at Annapolis. The call for immediate negotiations was presented as a concession to Palestinian demands. But since the language is vague and the commitment to negotiate is expressed only in terms of ‘joint understanding’ this in effect commits the Israelis to do nothing.
If stronger language from previous conferences and solemn agreements from the 1991 Madrid Conference, the 1993 Oslo Agreement and subsequent agreements in Cairo and Sharm El Sheikh to the 2004 roadmap were not binding enough for the Israelis, why should a mere ‘understanding’ be any more effective?
The question is relevant in view of the Israeli record of disregard of previous agreements and in view of Washington’s traditional bias for the Israeli positions.
The Bush administration has gone further in its biased support for Israel than any other previous administration.
Bush reversed the Clinton policy of negotiation with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, accepted the Israeli contention that Arafat was no partner for peace, and refused to meet with him. When the Israeli tanks and troops stormed Yasser Arafat’s compound in Ramallah in the spring of 2002, Secretary of State Collin Powel’s proposal for a peace conference was rejected by the White House-thus essentially endorsing Israeli use of force to humiliate Arafat and perpetuate the conflict.
The Israeli flagrant violation of the roadmap’s ban on settlement activities elicited no more than the usual slap on the rest from Washington.
In fact, in a dramatic reversal of traditional US position on settlement activities, and in clear violation of international law, Bush accepted Sharon’s request for Washington’s endorsement of his settlement expansion. In a letter dated April 14, 2004 to then prime minister Ariel Sharon, Bush stated : “Israel must have secure and recognized borders… In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”
Bush was thus prejudging the final outcome of the negotiations and setting aside both the roadmap and the principles of international law as the proper terms of reference for the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian disputes.
As delegates at the Annapolis meeting listened politely, Bush repeated his support for the Israeli position. He called on Israel to evacuate the ‘illegal West Bank settlement outposts’ sidestepping the fact that all West Bank settlements-not just the outposts- are illegal Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal elegantly expressed the Arab position on another core issue: the right of return of the Palestinian refugees: “I mean, here’s an issue where people not from Palestine come to Palestine, occupied land in Palestine that happened to have people living there, and now they want to consider these people illegal in a purely Jewish homeland. Why?” Prince Saud said. “If you come to a neighborhood by your choice, you have to live with the people in the neighborhood.” (NYT. Nov 27.07)
But surely Prince Saud must have known that Bush had already supported Israeli refusal to accept the Palestinian refugees’ right of return. In his April 2004 letter to Sharon Bush wrote: “It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.”
Not satisfied with this remarkable support from Washington, the Israelis made it clear at Annapolis that the negotiations would be bilateral; in other words subject not to the international consensus and legitimacy of UN participation, but to the grossly unequal relationship of power between occupier and occupied.
The Israelis even emphasized that the United States would be “only the interpreter of progress, and not an actual player.” (NYT. Nov 27.07) in order to exclude any hint of illusion that might be entertained by Palestinians or Arabs that Washington might pressure Israel to do anything.
The White House confirmed the role assigned by Israel to America. It even withdrew at Israel’s request a draft resolution that would have had the UN Security Council endorse the Annapolis statement-lest the involvement of the UN present a hint of an obligation to be guided by the principles of justice and international law in the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
No sooner had Annapolis ended the Israelis announced plans for the construction of 300 homes in occupied East Jerusalem With the outcome of the negotiations on core issues already prejudiced, and the principles of international law set aside in favor of bilateral relationship of power, Annapolis merely confirmed these realities. It is not surprising therefore that one Israeli official triumphantly describe the Annapolis meeting as ““The mother of all photo ops,” (NYT. Nov 27.07)
Professor Adel Safty is author of ‘From Camp David to the Gulf’, Montreal, New York. His latest book, ‘Leadership and Democracy’ is published by IPSL Press, New York, 2004.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate