On
Thursday, 8 November, in a prelude to the upcoming Annapolis conference, the Israeli
government and Palestinian Authority agreed to stipulations that “any implementation
of agreements in the future will be conditional to both sides carrying out what
they must in accordance with the first stage of the [2002 US-Drafted] road map.”
The Annapolis conference was devised by US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice as a gathering of the pro-American forces in the Middle
East following the model of the 1970s anticommunist regional
gatherings. Thus, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are excluded from attendance. Accordingly,
some argue that contrary to its portrayal of peaceful intent, the Annapolis conference is
in actuality closer to a war conference.
The
potential for success of the conference is contingent upon its ability to
resolve key issues in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Namely, it must put an end to
the Palestinian question in a substantial and agreed upon manner, and garner
approval from the Arab states for the legitimacy of the continued existence of
the state of Israel.
However, these objectives require an end to the Israeli occupation, the
establishment of a Palestinian state, and a solution to the issue of the
Palestinian refugees. Consequently, in order for the Annapolis
conference to be successful, it would have to challenge Israel’s aims of maintaining a Jewish majority
and extending its borders by annexing the major settlement blocks in the West Bank.
The Annapolis conference could have the potential for success if
it adopted the principles of the Saudi Arabia
led Arab League initiative, which proposes full recognition of Israel in
exchange for an Israeli retreat from all the occupied territories and a solution
to problem of the Palestinian refugees. But the US
administration opted to legitimatize Israel
as-it-is in the region, excluding the Arab League initiative from the table and
Saudi Arabia
from the conference.
Instead,
lying on the conference table will be the competing text of the road map.
This
document, adopted by the Quartet (which includes the UN, Russia and the EU in addition to the US) is a three
phase process. The first phase stipulates that Israel
must freeze all construction in settlements or building of new settlements,
while the Palestinian Authority is required to end all military threats against
Israel.
During the second phase, a Palestinian state with temporary borders will be
created. In the third and final phase, the Palestinian
State and Israel will negotiate a final status
agreement.
In 2003, US President George W. Bush declared that the existence
of the major Israeli settlement blocks must be taken into consideration when negotiating
the final borders of the Palestinian
State. This position was
echoed at the Saban Forum by Tony Blair, the Quartet special delegate, who
attacked the European position that views the Green Line (pre-1967 borders) as
the only legitimate marker for setting the future borders of a Palestinian
state.
Israel’s interpretation of the road map is
that its implementation is conditioned on the Palestinian Authority’s capacity
to “fight terror and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.” Under this
arrangement, it will be up to Israel
to declare when Palestinian actions sufficiently accommodate its demands, and only
then would Israel
move towards dismantling isolated settlements.
While the road
map stipulates that Israel be
required to dismantle settlements built after May 2001, Israel is not
ready even to go this far. The Israeli government has only agreed to dismantle
settlements that have not been authorized by the Israel authorities. And, as we move
towards the Annapolis conference, Israel is
making every effort to “legalise” the existence of many of the settlement
outposts still lacking authorization.
In an
attempt to avoid failure at Annapolis,
the Americans have implemented a strategy of recycling washed up and shallow promises
in exchange for an escalation of the PA clash with Hamas. If Abu Mazen will be
ready to become the Palestinian Pinochet, he will be prized with the presidency
of a Palestinian state with temporary borders, a mere patina of sovereignty, and
all on a territory covering 45 percent of the West Bank (12 percent of historical
Palestine). If Abu
Mazen rejects this meager offer, following the fate of Arafat, he will be
declared a “radical” and be boycotted by Israel
and the US
administration.
|
News 
