Archive for November, 2007

Syria accepts invitation to Annapolis Conference

Sunday, November 25th, 2007

Haaretz has just reported “Government sources in Damascus said Sunday that the Syrian government will send its deputy foreign minister [Faysal Mekdad] to the Annapolis peace conference this week”. The Haaretz report is here.

The Jerusalem Post reported that “in recent days the Annapolis conference has also turned into a meeting that is to a large degree about Syria”. The JPost article added that “While there is no love lost in Washington for Syrian President Bashar Assad, Syria’s presence at the meeting is something that in a matter of months has gone from something that the US indicated it would tolerate, to something that the US now wants badly. And not only the US. Jordan’s King Abdullah II made a rare trip to Damascus Sunday to try and get Assad on board. As odd as it may sound, Syria is the prize. The US wants to see Syria at Annapolis because its presence there will be proof that it may very well be possible to peel Syria out of Iran’s orbit and into the warm embrace of the ‘normative’ Arab world … Washington is so keen on seeing some kind of Syrian presence at Annapolis that it has apparently given assurances that “Syrian issues” will be addressed there in some fashion. And Syrian issues in this context means only one thing: the Golan Heights. Syria has made it clear that it would not show up in Maryland unless the Golan was on the agenda … Assad has a price for his attendance and for moving away from Iran, a price that – sooner or later – Israel will be asked to pay”.  The JPost commentary on Syria’s just-confirmed participation in the Annapolis event is here.

The Associated Press is reporting that “On the plane carrying [Israeli FM Tzipi] Livni and [Israeli PM Ehud] Olmert to the U.S., Livni suggested that a lack of Arab backing contributed to the failure of the last round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, which broke down in bloodshed in early 2001. The Arab world, she said, ‘should stop sitting on the fence’. ‘There isn’t a single Palestinian who can reach an agreement without Arab support’, she said. ‘That’s one of the lessons we learned seven years ago’.”  The AP report is here.

But, a commentator in Haaretz said, “Saud al-Faisal and his colleagues should treat Olmert like Sadat treated Begin in 1977 – not like Farouk al-Shara treated Ehud Barak in Shepherdstown in 2000″.  The then-Syrian Foreign Minister refused to shake hands with the then-Israeli Prime Minister. The commentator added that “the Arab guests at the summit must break their psychological barriers. If the stances taken (or orchestrated) at the summit succeed in shaking the lack of confidence the Israeli public has in the intentions of the Palestinians and the Arab states, its opinion may change. In this respect, it is disappointing to hear the announcement of the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia that he is traveling to the U.S., but does not intend to take part “in this theatrical gesture of shaking hands.” The behavior of the Arab foreign ministers toward the Israeli delegation to Annapolis will press a sensitive point among Israelis – their fear that they may be seen as suckers”.  The commentary in Haaretz is published here.

The political crisis in Lebanon is another a very important reason that everyone, in the end, desperately wanted Syria to attend [See our earlier posts, here, and here].

And, the Lebanese acting foreign minister [Tarek Mitri] has also just arrived in the U.S. to attend the Annapolis conference (though Hizbollah has protested this.)

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Jerusalem “red alert” lifted after a few hours

Sunday, November 25th, 2007

The Israeli press is now reporting that, after a few anxious hours, “Jerusalem police on Sunday lifted a red alert which had been in force in the city throughout the afternoon, police said. The heightened alert, which was imposed at lunchtime in the wake of intelligence warnings over an impending terror attack in or around the city, came two days before the US sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland. It was not immediately clear if the would-be assailants were caught.
The red-alert was lowered at 3:30 p.m. on the instructions of Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) which had first put police on alert at midday. Throughout the afternoon, police were conducting spot checks on vehicles at the entrances to the city causing unusually heavy traffic congestion in the capital, and were increasing border police patrols on the northern and southern outskirts of the city. Magen David Adom rescue services had gone on the highest state of alert in the wake of the initial announcement of the police red alert … Police periodically issue red alerts in the wake of an amalgamation of intelligence warnings indicating an impending Palestinian suicide bombing”. The JPost report that the red alert had been lifted in Jerusalem is here.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Gideon Levy in Haaretz: Palestinian negotiators should have focussed on the occupation

Sunday, November 25th, 2007

Gideon Levy writes in Haaretz today that, in advance of the Annapolis, “The public discourse in Israel has momentarily awoken from its slumber. ‘To give or not to give’, that is the Shakespearean question – ‘to make concessions’ or ‘not to make concessions’. It is good that initial signs of life in the Israeli public have emerged. It was worth going to Annapolis if only for this reason – but this discourse is baseless and distorted. Israel is not being asked ‘to give’ anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return – to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity. This is the primary core issue, the only one worthy of the title, and no one talks about it anymore. No one is talking about morality anymore. Justice is also an archaic concept, a taboo that has deliberately been erased from all negotiations. Two and a half million people – farmers, merchants, lawyers, drivers, daydreaming teenage girls, love-smitten men, old people, women, children and combatants using violent means for a just cause – have all been living under a brutal boot for 40 years. Meanwhile, in our cafes and living rooms the conversation is over giving or not giving. Lawyers, philosophers, writers, lecturers, intellectuals and rabbis, who are looked upon for basic knowledge about moral precepts, participate in this distorted discourse. What will they tell their children – after the occupation finally becomes a nightmare of the past – about the period in which they wielded influence? What will they say about their role in this? Israeli students stand at checkpoints as part of their army reserve duty, brutally deciding the fate of people, and then some rush off to lectures on ethics at university, forgetting what they did the previous day and what is being done in their names every single day. Intellectuals publish petitions, ‘to make concessions’ or ‘not to make concessions’, diverting attention from the core issue. There are stormy debates about corruption – whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is corrupt and how the Supreme Court is being undermined. But there is no discussion of the ultimate question: Isn’t the occupation the greatest and most terrible corruption to have taken root here, overshadowing everything else? Security officials are terrified about what would happen if we removed a checkpoint or released prisoners, like the whites in South Africa who whipped up a frenzy of fear about the ‘great slaughter’ that would ensue if blacks were granted their rights. But these are not legitimate questions: The incarceration must be ended and the myriad of political prisoners should be released unconditionally. Just as a thief cannot present demands – neither preconditions nor any other terms – to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is

Gideon Levy continues: “Security? We must defend ourselves by defensive means. Those who do not believe that the only security we will enjoy will come from ending the occupation and from peace can entrench themselves in the army, and behind walls and fences. But we have no right to do what we are doing: Just as no one would conceive of killing the residents of an entire neighborhood, to harass and incarcerate it because of a few criminals living there, there is no justification for abusing an entire people in the name of our security. The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel’s security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice. No one will discuss this at Annapolis. Even if the real core issues were raised, they would focus on secondary questions – borders, Jerusalem and even refugees. But that would be escaping the main issue. After 40 years, one might have expected that the real core issue would finally be raised for honest and bold discussion: Does Israel have the moral right to continue the occupation? T he world should have asked this long ago. The Palestinians should have focused only on this. And above all, we, who bear the guilt, should have been terribly troubled by the answer to this question“. Gideon Levy’s pre-Annapolis analyis in Haaretz is published here.

Just my own footnote: Condoleeza Rice has never once, to my knowledge, pronounced the word “occupation” in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Israeli driving – notoriously bad

Sunday, November 25th, 2007

The Jerusalem Post has published an interesting article on the notoriously bad driving in Israel. Traffic fatalities have apparently caused a very large number of deaths in the country — 380 victims so far this year, in a country of just about seven million people.

The JPost story quotes Jackie, a Tel Aviv taxi driver, as calling his road companions “Godless sociopaths, the lot of them.” He says that “They care about nobody but themselves” … “It gets worse every year,” he goes on. “They’re godless and they’re mad, and this is the real face of the nation. They rush for no reason; they want to get in front of you for no reason, just so that they can wait in line one place in front of you. I can’t explain it. I think Israelis drive like they do because life here is such sh*t, in every respect”…, the taxi driver says. You know the type of driver Jackie’s talking about: The one that cuts you off, putting you milliseconds from a crash for no apparent reason; the one who drives so close to your tail that you can read his lips as he talks on a (hand-held) cellphone; the same one that, at night, drives right up behind you and starts flashing his headlights for you to get out of the way, regardless of whether or not there is another vehicle on your right or left; the same one that suddenly moves across two lanes so as not to miss the exit, without looking, signaling, or even putting the phone down; the one that doesn’t understand that the safe distance between cars is not an extra space into which more cars can be squeezed; the same one that takes the parking spot you’ve waited patiently for, turn-signal on and all.” The JPost article on Israeli bad driving, “Why are we so insane on the roads“, is posted here.

I can testify that Israeli (and Palestinian) driving is absolutely hair-raising.

What, if anything, does this say about the future of the peace process?
(more…)

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Jerusalem put on high terror alert before Annapolis conference

Sunday, November 25th, 2007

The Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported Sunday that “Israeli sources stated that the Israeli authorities will intensify security measures across the West Bank from Monday until the Annapolis conference is over. Israel radio announced that thousands of Israeli troops will be deployed across the West Bank, specifically in the densely populated areas. Border guards will also be deployed in force along the borders with the Palestinian Territories. Israeli police sources told Israeli radio that the Israeli authorities are worried that bombing operations may take place inside Israel in an attempt to derail the US-sponsored conference due to begin on Tuesday. However, the sources said there was no specific intelligence that such attacks were being planned”.   The Ma’an news agency report is here.

A few short hours later, there was apparently “specific intelligence”. Haaretz reported that “Jerusalem police are on high alert Sunday afternoon after receiving a tip according to which two terrorists were en route to Jerusalem in order to carry out an attack in the city ahead of Tuesday’s Middle East peace conference in Annapolis. Authorities suggest the terrorists may be passing through Jerusalem to attack a target in the center of the country, as suicide bombers have done in the past. It remains unclear whether the suspected terrorists have already managed to enter the city. In response to the latest developments, Magen David Adom director-general Eli Bin announced that the alert level in Jerusalem is now at ‘Gimmel’, or stage three, while the alert level in the Dan, Yarkon, and Ayalon districts in the center of the country have been raised to ‘Bet’, or level two. Security forces have erected checkpoints in northern Jerusalem and on Highway 1, the main highway connecting Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. There has been significant movement of ambulances and rescue services on the city’s streets and police helicopters have also been spotted over the capital. Authorities have also deployed the Police Special Anti-Terror Unit in northern Jerusalem.  The Narkiss Bridge, which stretches over the French Hill junction and which leads to Jewish neighborhoods in the northern part of the city, including Pisgat Ze’ev and Neve Ya’akov, has been closed to traffic in both directions”.  The Haaretz reports that Israeli intelligence believes two terrorists are going to carry out a pre-Annapolis attack is posted here.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

The draft Israeli-Palestinian document for Annapolis was published by Haaretz

Sunday, November 25th, 2007

Haaretz’ veteran correspondent Amira Hass, who lives in the West Bank (capital) city of Ramallah, managed to get a hold of the draft Israeli-Palestinian document, which is now posted on the Haaretz website (sorry, but you have to go to the website to find the link – it’s called an_doc.pdf).

Hass says that the draft she obtained showed changes only through 17 November, and not since.

The draft contains bracketed paragraphs, showing the Israeli and Palestinian preferred positions, and some additional proposals from the US and from “SE” — probably meaning Quartet “Special Envoy” Tony Blair.

The Palestinians are (or were, as of 17 November) proposing a “Follow-up” mechanism, meaning that an international conference should convene every three months “to monitor and review progress and to help overcome difficulties”. A Palestinian bracketed paragraph says that “neither side shall initiate or take steps that shall change the status of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip that are not contemplated herein, pending the full implementation of the treaty. All Palestinian prisoners shall be released upon the signing of the treaty. Furthermore, Israel shall make every effort to improve the daily lives and advance the welfare of the Palestinian population pending the full implementation of the Treaty”.

The initial report in Haaretz, accompanying the document, says that the draft did not mention removing roadblocks or checkpoints, and said nothing at all about The Wall, or about the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion of 2004 which said The Wall was illegal under international law, and that states parties to the Geneva Convention were obligated to work against it. The ICJ said that Israel had an obligation to dismantle The Wall — at least, any parts of it that were built on land seized in 1967 (much of The Wall is built on occupied territory), and to dismantle the regime associated with The Wall — as well as to compensate Palestinians whose lives and lands were damaged by The Wall.

Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erekat apparently has said something about its not being accurate — but Israeli sources have not disputed the draft.

The document is … well, disappointing. Disillusioning. Actually, really rather bad. As an Israeli friend (who describes himself ironically as “extreme left”) said: “So, what has all the shooting and violence been about, if this is all the Palestinians want?”

Amira Hass herself writes: “If it’s only a draft, one would expect the Palestinians to set the bar higher at the outset, with explicit demands: to freeze the construction in the settlements, to stop land confiscation, to stop building the double road system for settlers and Palestinians, to remove the roadblocks. As far as the Palestinian public is concerned, these are the counter-demands to the Israeli insistence on fighting terror, radicalization, incitement, etc. which are all included in the draft and partly signed by the Palestinians as well. Another glaring omission from the Palestinian draft is the Gaza Strip situation. There is not even vague lip-service to ‘doing everything possible to open the strip passages’ to ease humanitarian suffering. This absence exposes a de facto Palestinian position (denied publicly) of giving up on any Gaza role in a political solution. [n.b., at the UN, at least, the Palestinian observer has twice actively tried to increase Gaza's political isolation. See UN-Truth.com. The draft document published by Haaretz does mention, as a subordinate phrase, "addressing the situation in Gaza" ... ] The absence of an explicit call to freeze construction in the settlements is in keeping with the negotiating tactic of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority as shaped in the Oslo years: There is no point in insisting on interim-period issues, concrete as they may be. This is how the PA officials explained their agreement to dividing the West Bank into zones A, B and C. According to this tactic, when they negotiate on establishing a state they would insist on their demands, which are based on all the international resolutions. At that stage the settlements, fence and roadblocks would be removed in any case. [n.b. sorry, but this argument -- or maybe it is this explanation -- is incomprehensible to me] This is why the Palestinians are so opposed to the wording, ‘Israel is the state of the Jewish people’, yet don’t insist on including a statement such as ‘construction in the settlements will be suspended until the agreement is signed’. The problem, of course, is that during the ongoing interim period Israel is making huge changes in the West Bank, intended to fundamentally affect the final status map. Thus the Palestinian draft reflects a very weak, even defeatist opening stance, in view of the Palestinians’ expectations of their leadership”. Amira Hass’ analysis of the draft is posted here.

After the Haaretz publication of the draft Israeli-Palestinian document, the Jerusalem Post reported Friday that “The Palestinian Authority is not interested – because of domestic political concerns – in issuing a joint document at the upcoming meeting in Annapolis, according to current assessments in Jerusalem. It is believed to be wary of making any compromises because they would be roundly criticized by Hamas and much of the Palestinian ‘street’. According to sources in Jerusalem, a leak of one of the draft documents that appeared in Haaretz on Thursday – apparently from Palestinian sources – indicated that the Palestinians don’t want a joint document. Palestinians opposed to the document released its contents, according to these assessments, in order to place pressure on the PA not to accept it”… The JPost story is posted here.

Haaretz published another piece on Sunday suggesting that the two “big bosses”, Olmert and Abbas, knew nothing about this lousy draft, and that the negotiators are taking a “time out” while the big bosses decide: “While the two sides have lessened the gaps in their positions in recent days, there still remain divisions over several central issues. Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas have been informed of these divisions so that they can make a decision ahead of the meeting in Annapolis, Maryland on Tuesday. ‘We are having a time out’, said a source in Jerusalem on Thursday. ‘The document is ready and awaiting only a few of the leaders’ decisions’. At the moment, the decisions to be made by Olmert and Abbas are relate to the timetable of steps; mention of the Arab peace initiative and the role of the Arab world in the process; and how to deal with the ‘day after’ the Annapolis conference. ‘We have reduced the gaps and some of the divisions have simply been erased from the declaration in order to allow us to move ahead. We are now at the point of deciding on two or three words on each item’, the Jerusalem source said. The Haaretz report that the negotiators are taking a time out is posted here.

Late Sunday afternoon, Haaretz reported that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told reporters on the plane bringing her, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and Israeli Defense Minister (and former Prime Minister) Ehud Barak to Washington for the Annapolis conference that, in the end, “I think there will be a joint document … this is the statement that will launch the (peace) process, not solve (the conflict).” Livni’s remarks as reported by Haaretz are published here.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Palestinians are not universally thrilled

Sunday, November 25th, 2007

Late on Saturdan night in Washington, a plane carrying Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas touched down at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, the Associated Press has reported.  The AP said that Abbas said, to journalists aboard his plane, “I am going to Annapolis in an effort to realize the dream of the Palestinian people for an independent state”. Abbas told reporters aboard his plane.  The AP also reported that “The Palestinian leader added that the anticipated presence of many foreign leaders at the conference ‘shows that the international community is determined to support the peace process’.

Palestinian Pundit summarizes, in a post taken from the Palestine Information Center (PIC) some recent Palestinian reaction to the imminent Annapolis event: “The Hamas Movement on Saturday denounced the participation of Arab countries in the Annapolis conference, describing it as a ‘big shock’ for the Palestinian people. Dr. Sami Abu Zuhri, the Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, said in a press release that no justifications for Arab participation were accepted especially when such participation opens the door wide open for normalization with occupation and comes at a time of continued IOF diggings under the Aqsa Mosque. He further noted that Israel had put the condition of PA recognition of it as a ‘Jewish state’ in order to continue negotiation, and added that the Arabs go to the conference while ignoring the fact that Gaza is facing slow death under the tight Israeli siege. The Palestinian people were expecting an Arab unanimity on breaking the siege rather than unanimously agreeing to attend a meeting with occupation, Abu Zuhri said, affirming, ‘We believe that the meeting would only entail more failure and more harm to the Palestinian and Arab questions and rights’. For his part, MP Dr. Mustafa Al-Barghouthi, the secretary general of the Mubadara party, affirmed that the Annapolis conference had failed before it started. He charged that Israel imposed failure on the conference when it refused to discuss any essential issue such as that of Palestinian refugees, borders, Jerusalem and settlements. The MP deplored the fact that the Palestinian side had allowed the Israelis to pursue such a method. MP Khaleda Jarrar, a PFLP politburo member, stressed that the Palestinian people would reject any bargaining over the right of resistance or any attempt to conclude agreements infringing on the Palestinian basic rights. The popular struggle front secretary general Khaled Abdul Majid has warned of the seriousness of the Annapolis conference. In a statement to PIC, he said that the meeting was solely meant to serve American and Israeli interests, adding that it would serve as a cover up for expected American steps in the region to wipe out resistance and forces of rejection in the region. The popular resistance committees in Gaza warned the conferees in Annapolis against gambling with the Palestinian constants, adding that the meeting would only attempt to endorse occupation’s measures. The PFLP – General Command appealed to the invitees not to go to Annapolis, describing it as a ‘peace mirage’.” The posting on Palestinian Pundit is here.

The Jerusalem Post’s Khaled Abu Toameh, however, writes that “The overall feeling in the Arab world in general and among the Palestinians in particular is that the United States is dragging the Arabs to the Annapolis peace conference against their will. Several Arab leaders, including Palestinian Authority representatives, have been trying over the past few weeks to persuade the Americans that this is not the appropriate time for such conferences, but to no avail. The main reason cited by the Arab leaders is that they don’t believe that the conference will lead to a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process, largely due to Israel’s refusal to fully withdraw to the pre-1967 borders and accept other demands, such as a total freeze in settlement construction, the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners and acknowledging the ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees. But as much as they are afraid of Israel’s ‘intransigence’, Washington’s Arab allies fear the deep divisions and infighting that continue to plague the Arab world. Their major concern is that the Bush administration was planning to exploit the conference to create a US-led coalition to confront Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah“.

The JPost article continues: “The Palestinians are going to the conference at the peak of the bloody power struggle between Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction and Hamas. In addition to Hamas, many other Palestinians are questioning Abbas’s right to represent them at a peace conference where core issues, such as the status of Jerusalem and the refugee problem, are once again on the table. In short, their argument is that he does not have a mandate to make any concessions to Israel on important and fateful issues. On top of all this, Abbas’s negotiating team appears to be divided not only over the Palestinian strategy at the conference, but also over which one of its members will go to Annapolis. The head of the negotiating team, Ahmed Qurei [Abu Ala] is said to be at odds with Yasser Abed Rabbo, one of the leading negotiators. Sources close to the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah also have it that Abbas and his prime minister, Salaam Fayad, have been engaged in a behind-the-scenes power struggle for some time now. According to the sources, Fayad, who ran as head of the independent Third Way party in the January 2006 parliamentary elections, is already preparing himself for the post-Abbas era. Backed by the US and EU, Fayad has managed to consolidate his power in the past few months, much to the dismay of several top officials surrounding Abbas … And since Fayad is the one who’s paying salaries and attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid, there is no doubt that many Palestinians in the West Bank would prefer to see him sitting in Abbas’s seat … Some Palestinians continue to refer to Abbas as the ‘mayor of Ramallah’ because of his limited control over the rest of the West Bank”. The JPost pre-Annapolis analyis of Palestinian and Arab positions is here.

Palestinian commentator Khaled Amayreh, who has previously called on Mahmoud Abbas to resign, wrote last week in an article published by the Ma’an news agency that “Forecasting the failure of the Annapolis meeting is more than speculation. It is a realistic assessment of an event that is not intended to be successful, even if the declared desire suggests otherwise. Indeed, apart from the pleasantries which are meant to create positive atmospherics, Israel and the PA have failed to reach any modicum of agreement on the core issues that define the Palestinian problem. A few weeks ago, PA officials were almost euphoric about the conference. PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas vowed to boycott the Annapolis meeting unless Israel agreed in principle at least to end its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, as well as accept a just settlement of the refugee problem pursuant UN resolution 194. But Israel, of course, agreed to non of that. Now, the PA will go to Annapolis without any assurance policy, relying mainly on George Bush’s ‘good will’, (whatever that means in real terms). I asked one high-ranking PA official in Ramallah this week how come the PA leadership was going to Annapolis, despite the clarion fiasco of the protracted meetings between Israeli and Palestinian officials. Embarrassed by the question, the official said ‘we are going to Annapolis to demonstrate to the world the justice of our cause and the need for a just and durable peace in this volatile region’. I reminded him that ‘we have been doing this for ages but to no avail’. Disquieted by the rejoinder, the official looked rather attentively at me, saying ‘what else can we do? If you have some ideas, convey them to Abu Mazen’ …”

Amayreh’s piece continues: “Abbas looks really very pathetic. He had already placed all his eggs into the American basket which means that he won’t be able to say ‘No’ to the Americans even when he must. This is why all he can do to save his Palestinian Authority, which is actually devoid of any real authority, is to day-dream and implore the werewolf of the White House to press Israel to demonstrate true desire for peace. Day-dreaming, psychologists say, represents the highest degree of frustration. But, as the famous Arab poet Zuheir said more than 1400 years ago, he that doesn’t respect himself shall not be respected by others. Abbass should have himself to blame. He trusted Bush and Olmert too much to the extent that he has become a vanquished supplicant at their doorsteps. He maltreated his people and did many things that should not have been done, all to please and appease Olmert and Bush, but to no avail…”

Amayreh’s latest piece, which is too vitriolic for the pages of Al-Ahram Weekly magazine, to which he contributes regularly, is here.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Francis Boyle: The PLO was not invited to Annapolis!

Sunday, November 25th, 2007

The Global Research website, which describes itself as the product of “an independent research and media group of writers, scholars journalists and activists”, has just written about the forthcoming Annapolis meeting that “it seems the US has invited practically everyone in the world to this fandango — from Poland to Sweden to Slovenia to Yemen to the World Bank and the IMF… except the PLO — which is the only body that has the authority and international standing to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people! In addition, the elected government of Hamas is also not invited, of course”.

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”…

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Mubarak says judgment on Annapolis should wait, but Egyptians are not impressed

Sunday, November 25th, 2007

The McClatchy newspaper group is reporting from Cairo that “Olmert and Abbas, however, have yet to agree on the joint statement they pledged to announce at the conference, and some Arab officials said Friday that the conference planning appeared haphazard. The event, initially billed as a groundbreaking summit, has shrunk to a half-day event that one senior Egyptian official, who diplomatically spoke only on the condition of anonymity, derided as a ‘coffee party’. As late as this week, some participants complained that they still hadn’t received formal invitations, and skeptics said the conference wasn’t likely to yield more than a promise of more talks. In a column in an Arabic-language newspaper, former Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher dismissed the event as a ‘theatrical farce.” The McClatchy report from Cairo is here.

A week ago, Egypt’s President Husni Mubarak urged that judgement be withheld until the Annapolis outcome is clear.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Israeli press leaks Annapolis agenda – now through Wednesday

Sunday, November 25th, 2007

Haaretz is reporting today that “Israeli and American officials held talks over the weekend on a formula for referring to the Syrian track that would suffice to bring Syria to the conference without undermining Israel’s interests … Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak all left for Annapolis Saturday night. Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will lead a final round of talks aimed at drafting a joint Israeli-Palestinian declaration. Livni and Rice will also discuss the contents of the session on a comprehensive regional peace [n.b., this title that is supposed to entice Syria] … The Quartet of Middle East peacemakers the U.S., European Union, United Nations and Russia will also meet Sunday, at the level of foreign ministers. Monday, the three Israeli ministers will meet with U.S. President George Bush, as will Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Barak will also meet U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to discuss the Iranian nuclear program. In the evening, Rice will host a dinner for all conference participants; both she and Bush will address the dinner. The conference itself will take place on Tuesday. It will open at about 10 A.M. with a three-way meeting between Bush, Olmert and Abbas, after which each of the three will give a speech. Then, the working sessions will begin; representatives of other countries are expected to give speeches at various points during these sessions. Livni will also try to meet privately with some of the Arab foreign ministers attending the conference, including those from countries with which Israel has no diplomatic relations. On Wednesday, Olmert and Abbas will each meet privately with Bush to talk about what happens next. Olmert and Bush will also discuss the Iranian nuclear program … Hundreds of protestors on Saturday night gathered outside of the Prime Minister’s official residence in Jerusalem to show support for the Annapolis Summit. The demonstrators called on Olmert not to surrender to what they termed the ‘deniers of peace in the government’. The rally was attended by MKs from the Meretz party as well as representatives of the Geneva Initiative and Peace Now”. Haaretz’ report with the Annapolis agenda details is here.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati