In this update by Susan Koppelman: her article, an Al=haq
joint open letter, and “Middle East Talks in Annapolis:
Photo-Op or Talk-Fest,” by Phyllis Bennis
Annapolis, the Road Map, Peace and Justice, by Susan Koppelman
The upcoming Annapolis Conference has had a definite presence
here in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem since it was first
announced. Namely, in terms of increased Israeli military
presence and increased Fatah police presence. We have felt
this presence with an increase in Israeli checkpoints, an
exponential increase in wait at these checkpoints and an
increase in military incursions in Palestinian villages; and
with the establishment of Palestinian or Fatah checkpoints
(mostly notably around Nablus) and Palestinian or Fatah search
missions. The increase in Israeli military and the increase
in Fatah police, along with Fatah’s training and new weaponry,
have all been funded by the U.S. government in conjunction
with the conference.
The conference in Annapolis is part of a push by U.S.
President Bush and Israeli President Olmert to reach a ‘final
solution’ to the conflict before Bush leaves office.
According to the Road Map, the Palestinian Authority, or the
Fatah party is to crack down on military resistance to the 40year Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
being levied from the West Bank; Gaza is being left completely
out of the picture now that Hamas has assumed control there.
Israel promises to dismantle some settlements and freeze the
construction of new settlements if the Palestinians are able
to squash military resistance to the occupation. Shortly
after the Annapolis Conference was announced and U.S. trained
Fatah police took to the streets, they arrested a reporter
from Ma’an News Agency for covering a Hamas rally.
Some Palestinians have vague remnants of hope that the
Annapolis Conference may be a first step towards the end of
the 40-year Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the
restoration of civil rights and freedom— God-willing.
However, most Palestinians are rightfully pessimistic that
negotiations based upon the Road Map have any prospect of
leading to justice. Many have cited the lack of a strong
legal framework as a leading cause for concern. (See in
attached word file, following my report, “Joint Letter to
Negotiating Parties by Palestinian Civil Society
Organisations” and “Middle East Talks in Annapolis: Photo-Op
or Talk-Fest” by Phyllis Bennis with bullet points on Borders,
Settlements, Refugees, and Jerusalem.)
There are many additional blind spots on the Road Map in
addition to its lack of legal framework for ending the
military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. I will raise
three of these here, to give you an understanding of the
severity of the injustices that will not be corrected by using
this plan.
1) The Road Map does not propose a plan for joint management
of the region’s shared water resources. More than
200,000 Palestinians on the West Bank are not connected
to a water network and forced to rely on tankered water
at a cost of 4-5x as much. In disadvantaged communities
like Yatta Village near Hebron, some families spend a
third of their income on water. The Jordan River and the
Mountain Aquifer are the best sources of water in the
region. Despite the fact that the West Bank is
contiguous to 70 km of the Jordan River and is sitting on
85% of the Mountain Aquifer, Palestinians are completely
denied the right to access the Jordan River and
profoundly limited in what they are allowed to develop of
the Mountain Aquifer.
2) The Road Map does not call for a dismantling of the
Apartheid Road Infrastructure. There are roads on the
West Bank, many of which date back to the British
Mandate, that Palestinians are newly forbidden from using
by Israel. These roads divide Palestinian villages,
disrupt long established Palestinian travel routes, and
isolate Palestinian villages behind Israeli-manned
checkpoints, while linking the illegal Israeli
settlements to 1967 Israel.
I have documented one such Apartheid Road, Road 443 (in
the attached slideshow). This is the road I use to
travel from Tel Aviv to Ramallah, as it saves me nearly
an hour in travel time. I have plans for linking these
photos to an Israeli Roadmap. For now, as you watch the
slideshow, notice that Modi’in, the large Israeli city on
the right with skyscrapers, is a settlement built to
obscure the Green Line; in fact a large portion of
Modi’in is on the Palestinian side of the Green Line.
Modi’in Illit off to the left is the Israeli settlement
that has been stealing land from Bil’lin, a Palestinian
village that is the site of weekly protests. The Israeli
High Court recently ruled in favor of Bil’lin’s claims to
the land stolen by the Wall, stating that the route of
the Wall did not have normal settlement growth in mind
(but rather was chosen to steal land from Bil’lin).
Notice that the checkpoint is more than 7 km inside the
Palestinian side of the Green Line / 1967 Armistice line.
Notice the bus stops linking the Israeli settlements to
the State of Israel; notice the road is in the West Bank
but traffic is reported in Hebrew on Israeli radio.
However, most importantly, NOTICE THE ROADBLOCKS PREVENTING
ACCESS TO PALESTINIAN VILLAGES BORDERING THE ROAD. Notice the
number of villages affected. With the exception of a
tunnel (possibly two?) many Palestinians are literally
trapped, and others are forced to go many kilometers out
of their way thru dehumanizing checkpoints to visit their
neighbors.
3) The Road Map does not call for dismantling all of the
settlements built against international law since 1967.
Instead Israel is only discussing the possibility of
dismantling settlements built after 2001. In 1993 Rabin
and Arafat negotiated the Oslo Accords, which called for
a halt to new settlement construction. In fact, in the
period following Oslo before the Second Intifada or
uprising of Palestinians, settlement construction
doubled. Frankly, Israel is not very credible on the
issue of freezing settlement construction. What should
Palestinians think now of Israel’s desire for peace when
Israel is not even offering to dismantle all settlements
built in direct violation of their last signed agreement?
Expectations low for Annapolis:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FFB414DC-268B-4AA581CE-6564C4EF0CF2.htm
AL-HAQ JOINT OPEN LETTER
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
REF.: 29.2007E
26 November 2007
A Foundation not an Afterthought: Upholding International Law
at Annapolis
Joint Letter to Negotiating Parties by Palestinian Civil
Society Organisations*
As Palestinian human rights and civil society organisations,
we the undersigned, are deeply concerned by the lack of a
clearly articulated legal framework for the upcoming
diplomatic negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian
National Authority (PNA) to be held at Annapolis on 27
November. While the process of negotiation is inherently
political, the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people to
dignity, territorial sovereignty and self-determination as
enshrined in binding international law may not be made the
subjects of negotiation.
Following 40 years of occupation of the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and numerous rounds of
failed diplomatic initiatives, international law must at last
be understood to be the essential over-arching framework for
negotiations. International law not only provides a means of
dispassionately assessing Israel’s existing policies and
practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), but
also limits the discretion of the negotiating parties, and
their sponsors, in deciding certain fundamental issues. Under
the terms of Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
of 1949 (the Fourth Geneva Convention), the Palestinian
civilian population of the OPT are “protected persons.” By
virtue of this status, they are entitled to certain
protections that may not be undermined or disregarded in
political agreements. This is clearly set forth in Article 47
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which establishes:
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be
deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the
benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced,
as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the
institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any
agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied
territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by
the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
This provision seeks to address the obvious imbalance of power
between the occupied and the occupier in any negotiation
process. It recognises that an Occupying Power can, by virtue
of its occupation, seek to legally validate through
“negotiation” the unilateral imposition of facts on the ground
that violate international humanitarian law and harm the
civilian population. As noted by the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC) in its authoritative commentary to the
Fourth Geneva Convention, there is in the case of occupation,
“a particularly great danger of the Occupying Power forcing
the Power whose territory is occupied to conclude agreements
prejudicial to protected persons.” This danger is clearly
present in the context of the current negotiations, and is
most obvious in relation to Israel’s settlement policy.
Throughout the 40 years of the occupation, Israel has used its
effective control over the OPT to implant some 149
settlements, currently home to over 470,000 settlers, which
control over 40% of the West Bank, including essential
agricultural and water resources. The current planned route of
the Wall will incorporate some 69 settlements, home to 83% of
the settler population, on 12.8% of the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem, that will remain on the western side of the
Wall. Under Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, an
Occupying Power is prohibited from transferring parts of its
civilian population into occupied territory. Israeli
settlements in the OPT are in flagrant violation of this
prohibition. Further, the construction and expansion of
settlements, and their associated infrastructure, requires the
extensive appropriation and destruction of property, and
severe movement restrictions which are further violations of
international humanitarian law and human rights law.
In March 2006 Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated his
intention to make the Wall the new border of the State of
Israel, incorporating settlements in the OPT and annexing
Palestinian land. To accept Israel’s retention of the
settlement blocs as part of a negotiated solution clearly
deprives the Palestinian civilian population of the benefits
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as it would validate Israel’s
violations thereof. As such any agreement recognising the
settlements is in flagrant violation of Article 47.
In the event that negotiations were to lead to recognition of
Israeli settlements in the OPT as part of the State of Israel,
this would amount to the endorsement of the acquisition of
territory by force. The illegality of the acquisition of
territory by force is a norm accepted and recognised by the
international community as a peremptory norm of international
law -- a norm from which no derogation is permitted.
The right of all peoples to self-determination is also
considered a peremptory norm of international law. The
retention of settlements and their associated infrastructure
by Israel would not only amount to the illegal annexation of
territory, but would also fragment the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem, into isolated geographical units. This would
severely undermine the meaningful exercise by the Palestinian
people of their inalienable right to self-determination by
limiting the possibility of a contiguous territory and the
ability to freely dispose of natural resources, both of which
are required for the meaningful exercise of this right.
Under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Laws of
Treaties, “a treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion,
it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international
law.” This therefore casts severe doubt on whether a
negotiated solution that accepts Israel’s retention of
settlements and de facto annexation of territory would be
valid under international law.
Other State parties accessory to the negotiations are also
obliged to duly consider their international law obligations
in relation to these negotiations. Under common Article 1 of
the Geneva Conventions, the High Contracting Parties
“undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present
Convention in all circumstances.” As specified by both the
ICRC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), this
provision entails an obligation on all State parties, whether
or not they are a party to the specific conflict, to take all
possible steps to ensure that the provisions of the Convention
are respected. In respect of the current negotiations, it is
important to note that the ICJ, in its Advisory Opinion on the
Wall, found all States to be under “an obligation, while
respecting the United Nations Charter and international law,
to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian
law as embodied in [the Fourth Geneva] convention.” Similarly,
and as also noted by the ICJ, under customary international
law all States have the duty not to recognise or to assist in
the creation or maintenance of illegal situations. Such
illegal situations would clearly include the acquisition of
territory by force, the denial of the right to selfdetermination and the construction of settlements in occupied
territory.
To date, all diplomatic initiatives have ignored international
law as the essential foundation of any solution to Israel’s
occupation of the OPT, thereby allowing for the proliferation
of violations. To cite but a few examples, in spite of former
negotiations, Palestinians saw, inter alia, the imposition of
draconian movement restrictions and unrestrained settlement
construction and expansion, during the Oslo Process.
Similarly, since the “Road Map” was initiated in 2002,
Palestinians have seen the further entrenchment and expansion
of settlements and the unilateral creation of a de facto
border between Israel and the would-be Palestinian state
through the building of the Wall.
Most recently, on 19 September 2007, Israel declared the Gaza
Strip an “enemy entity,” and began the imposition of further
sanctions on the already beleaguered Palestinian civilian
population therein. Having no basis in international law, the
designation of the Gaza Strip as an “enemy entity” represents
a clear effort by the Israel, the Occupying Power, to negate
its responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population
of the Gaza Strip under the terms of Fourth Geneva Convention.
The sanctions, which further exacerbate an already dire
humanitarian situation, further amount to unlawful reprisals
and the collective punishment of the civilian population of
the Gaza Strip.
In this context, we urge the parties to approach the upcoming
negotiations with a renewed sense of purpose, giving due
recognition of the international legal obligations incumbent
upon them, including UN Security Council and General Assembly
resolutions addressing Palestinian refugees. The task which
they face is a heavy one, as any final agreement must reflect
a commitment to the principles of international law, justice
in addressing wrongful acts, and respect for human rights. The
fundamental rights of the Palestinian people are matters of
binding international law, not political bargaining chips.
Their implementation must not be left to Israel’s beneficence,
but rather established as the foundation of any just and
durable solution to the conflict.
Al-Haq
Al-Dameer Association for Human Rights in Gaza
Addameer Prisoner’s Support and Human Rights Association
Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
Defence for Children International – Palestine Section
Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center
Palestinian Center for Human Rights
Palestinian Counselling Center
Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO)
Ramallah Center for Human Rights Studies
Women’s Studies Center
*The letter was sent on 26 November 2007 to key negotiating
parties including the President of the PNA, the Israeli Prime
Minister and Foreign Minister, and EU and UN Officials.
Middle East Talks in Annapolis:
By Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
Photo-Op or Talk-Fest
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 shortterm 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 highprofile (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 lowto 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 selfdetermination 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 noncontiguous 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 than 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 through 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 of 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 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 begun 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.)