Wednesday, June 30, 2010

PA capitulation clears way for 'proximity talks'

Direct Action www.directaction.org.au
Home » Issue 23: June 2010
PA capitulation clears way for 'proximity talks'

By Kim Bullimore

On May 7, US-backed “proximity talks” began two months after US special Mideast envoy George Mitchel, announced that the Fatah-led Palestine Authority (PA) and Israel had agreed to resume “indirect” negotiations. The “proximity talks” have been hailed by the Obama administration as a way of supposedly kick-starting the failed Arab-Israeli “peace process”. The talks have commenced despite the fact that Israel has not adhered to the 10-month “settlement freeze” demanded by the Obama administration.

Under the 1949 Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, also known as the “Fourth Geneva Convention”, an occupying power may not transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory. All of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories militarily occupied by Israel since June 1967 are therefore illegal under international law. This has been repeatedly acknowledged by the UN Security Council and reaffirmed by the UN’s International Court of Justice in its December 2003 advisory opinion on Israel’s apartheid wall.

In May 2009, US President Barack Obama told Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, whose electoral mandate as PA president expired in January 2009, that Washington would press Israel to meet its obligations under a 2003 “road map for peace” endorsed by the UN, the US, the European Union and Russia, which included stopping the construction of new Israeli settlements and the expansion of existing settlements. By that time these settlements housed close to 500,000 Israeli citizens in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem.

However, according to an Israeli Peace Now NGO Settlement Watch project report published in February 2010 there have been repeated violations of the supposed settlement freeze announced by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu last November. The report noted that in response to a parliamentary question, “Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai admitted that 29 settlements [had] breached the settlement freeze order”.

PA capitulation

Relying on Washington’s support, Abbas had previously stated that the PA would not engage in negotiations with Israel until the Netanyahu government froze settlement building and expansion. On May 2, however, Abbas sought Arab League approval for the PA’s capitulation to US and Israeli pressure to accept indirect negotiations without an Israeli settlement freeze. At a Cairo meeting of the Arab Peace Initiative Committee, only Syria and Lebanon, both of which have been the victims of Israeli military aggression, opposed giving the green light to the US brokered “proximity” talks.

At a press conference after the meeting, Syrian representative Yousef al-Ahmed said: “This committee has exceeded its authority and given the Palestinians the green light to start indirect talks without the Israelis taking steps on the ground … It was clear that the meeting ... was aimed at providing an Arab cover for an already-taken Palestinian decision to hold indirect negotiations with Israel with no guarantees”.

Nabil Abu Rudeina, a PA spokesperson said: “There is currently no idea to hold direct negotiations. The Palestinian and Arab positions on this matter are clear — there must be a clear reference for negotiations and the complete halt of settlements.” The PA’s engagement in the proximity talks confirms that it has opted to continue to pursue its failed strategy of diplomatic reliance on Washington, while informally abandoning its demand that Israel freeze settlement expansion as a precondition for negotiations.

On May 8, Yasser Abed Rabbo, Abbas’ chief adviser, told Israel’s YNet news website, that the decision to engage in the proximity talks was “mostly premised on pledges and guarantees made by the Americans to the Palestinian side in respect to the issues of settlements and the basis of negotiations — Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Road Map, and the Arab peace initiative”. Rabbo stated that Washington had pledged to ensure all core issues of the conflict would be discussed and that it would supposedly “adopt a very determined stance” against any Israeli provocations to disrupt the talks.

This confirms that the PA leadership continues to view Washington as supposedly a “neutral broker” in the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, Washington is an active participant in the Israeli colonisation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). As British freelance journalist Jonathan Cook reported in a May 15 article in the Abu Dhabi newspaper, The National, that the US government’s US Agency for International Development (USAID) has “helped to build 114 kilometers of Israeli-proposed roads [in the West Bank], despite a pledge from Washington six years ago that it would not assist in implementing what has been widely described as Israel’s ‘apartheid road’ plan”. Cook noted that USAID had “paid for the construction of nearly a quarter of the segregated road network put forward by Israel in 2004”.

These roads are designed to provide alternative routes to connect Palestinian communities, often by upgrading circuitous dirt tracks or by building tunnels under existing routes, while Israeli-only roads are maintained in order to facilitate Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank. Cook correctly pointed out that USAID’s “involvement in building a segregated West Bank road infrastructure would run counter to Washington’s oft-stated goal, including as it launched ‘proximity talks’ last week, to establish a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity”.
Fayyad plan

While the Abbas and the Fatah leadership have continued to pursue a failed strategy of reliance on the US government as a “neutral broker”, appointed Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad has continued to pursue economic policies to entrench and normalise Israel’s illegal occupation of the OPT. Over the past year, with the endorsement of Israel, the US and the EU, Fayyad, who has been hailed by both Israel and the US as “the Palestinian Ben Gurion”, has sought to implement an economic policy in the West Bank which is little different from the one proposed by Netanyahu in his Bar Ilan speech in June 2009.

Melbourne-based Palestinian writer Samah Sabawi, in her March 10 article on the Palestine Chronicle website, notes that, “Contrary to all the hype that surrounds economic peace, it is important to acknowledge the fact that it represents more of the same old policies Israel has pursued in the Occupied Territories for decades”. Sabawi noted that since 1967, Israel has “wanted the land the resources but not the people” of the OPT.

As Sabawi correctly argues, Netanyahu’s economic peace plan is a continuation of Israel’s attempt to economically integrate the natural resources of OPT into the Israeli economy. Fayyad, who initially opposed Netanyahu’s economically peace plan, has since fully embraced it. This is most clearly illustrated by in the way in which the PA continued to engage in monthly Joint Economic Committee meetings throughout the period when the PA had supposedly stopped talking with Israel until there was settlement freeze. The primary task of the JEC meetings is to foster joint Palestinian-Israeli business ventures.

Joseph Massad, a professor of Modern Arab politics at New York City’s Columbia University, noted in an April 14 article on the Electronic Intifada website that Fayyad is a “pioneer in normalisation” and that “Fayyad’s plan to establish a Palestinian state in August 2011 is in effect an acceptance of the Camp David proposals offered to and rejected by the late Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat in 2000”.

Given that Fayyad is aggressively promoting an “economic peace” policy which suits Israeli government and business interests, it is not surprising that Zionists around the world have started to be more vocal in their support for Fayyad. On May 13, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who is described by Jerusalem Post as “one of Israel’s most committed and articulate advocates”, told the Post that Fayyad was “the best [partner] Israel has, and probably the best Israel has ever had”.

Similarly, Bren Carlill an analysis at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, in an article in the May 13 Melbourne Age, while admonishing the Palestinian people for “their sense of victimhood”, observed that “There is one Palestinian, however, who is breaking the mould. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is building Palestinian infrastructure, fighting Palestinian corruption and laying the foundations for a viable Palestinian state.”

In an interview with the April 2 Tel Aviv Haaretz daily, Fayyad indicated that he was prepared to give up the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and properties in what is now the Israeli state. In response to the question of whether or not his plan takes into consideration the need to absorb Palestinian refugees, Fayyad responded, “Of course, Palestinians would have the right to reside within the State of Palestine”. The Palestinian state Fayyad refers to is what many analysts have come to regard as little different to the phony “independent homelands” (Bantustans) that apartheid South Africa tried, unsuccessfully, to get its indigenous African population to accept as a substitute for equal citizen rights.

6 comments:

ארז said...

""" Under the 1949 Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, also known as the “Fourth Geneva Convention”, an occupying power may not transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory. All of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories militarily occupied by Israel since June 1967 are therefore illegal under international law. This has been repeatedly acknowledged by the UN Security Council and reaffirmed by the UN’s International Court of Justice in its December 2003 advisory opinion on Israel’s apartheid wall. """

Thorough, but untrue.
the west bank and GAZA strip were mandate territories, later occupied BY JORDAN and EGYPT, after no Palestinian leader declared a Palestinian state after the UN resolution in 1947.
Israel occupied it in 1967.
Egypt refused to accept the GAZA strip back as part of her territory. Jordan gave up any claim towards the west bank. Legally, these are 'held territories', and not 'occupied', therefore, the only llegal Israeli settlements are those who were built over private Palestinian land - there are more than enough of those, but they are not the majority.

Could You show reference for UN resolutions that declare the west bank as occupied territory in the legal sense?

From what I read, UN resolutions are quite vague about this subject specifically and oare pen to different interpretations.

of course, even being legal, doesn't make those settlements decisions wise, moral, peace supporting or progressive in general.

Fayad does suggest a different policy. it is a better one, not just from a Zionist point of view, but also from the Palestinian view.

IT gives up fictional ideas like the right of return, for realistic achievements like functioning police force and economical infrastructures. The boycott against settlement goods, but not against Israeli goods, is a legitimate move towards stronger Palestinian economy, without adopting anti-Semitic agenda.

This line of thought does reminds me Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion who thought it is better to earn some, and continue the struggle than lose it all, and remain with hypothetical just demands.

Declaring a state on part of the territory doesn't have to end the Palestinian demand for more justice
and for a viable state.

Zionists accepted the division. It was the Palestinians who rejected it and paid a huge price for that decision.

Demanding utopian demands combines giving up what is realistically possible.

FAyad has to fight against Hamas, Fatah, the local strong families in the villages (chamulot), the Jewish settelments, radical Islam, and curruption in the PA's workers

Do You see any other relevant Palestinian political leader that actually serves his people and not selling them out ?

ארז said...

""" Under the 1949 Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, also known as the “Fourth Geneva Convention”, an occupying power may not transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory. All of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories militarily occupied by Israel since June 1967 are therefore illegal under international law. This has been repeatedly acknowledged by the UN Security Council and reaffirmed by the UN’s International Court of Justice in its December 2003 advisory opinion on Israel’s apartheid wall. """

Thorough, but untrue.
the west bank and GAZA strip were mandate territories, later occupied BY JORDAN and EGYPT, after no Palestinian leader declared a Palestinian state after the UN resolution in 1947.
Israel occupied it in 1967.
Egypt refused to accept the GAZA strip back as part of her territory. Jordan gave up any claim towards the west bank. Legally, these are 'held territories', and not 'occupied', therefore, the only llegal Israeli settlements are those who were built over private Palestinian land - there are more than enough of those, but they are not the majority.

Could You show reference for UN resolutions that declare the west bank as occupied territory in the legal sense?

From what I read, UN resolutions are quite vague about this subject specifically and oare pen to different interpretations.

of course, even being legal, doesn't make those settlements decisions wise, moral, peace supporting or progressive in general.

ארז said...

Fayad does suggest a different policy. it is a better one, not just from a Zionist point of view, but also from the a national Palestinian view.

IT gives up fictional ideas like the right of return, for realistic achievements like functioning police force and economical infrastructures. The boycott against settlement goods, but not against Israeli goods, is a legitimate move towards stronger Palestinian economy, without adopting anti-Semitic agenda.

This line of thought does reminds me Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion who thought it is better to earn some, and continue the struggle than lose it all, and remain with hypothetical just demands.

Declaring a state on part of the territory doesn't have to end the Palestinian demand for more justice
and for a viable state.

Zionists accepted the division. It was the Palestinians who rejected it and paid a huge price for that decision.

Demanding utopian demands combines giving up what is realistically possible.

FAyad has to fight against Hamas, Fatah, the local strong families in the villages (chamulot), the Jewish settelments, radical Islam, and curruption in the PA's workers

Do You see any other relevant Palestinian political leader that actually serves his people and not selling them out ?

Kim said...

While Jordan and Egypt did administer the West Bank and Gaza from 1949 until 1967, these two areas have been recognised internationally as Palestinian territory which is illegally occupied by a belligerent military force (ie. the Israeli Occupation Forces).

Israel's colonies in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza are also recognised under international law as illegal (Israel refuses to accept this - no surprise there - but every other country in the world recognise this interantional legal ruling).

UN Resolution 242 is specifically states the territory seized by Israel in 1967 is "occupied territory". 242 notes the "inadmissibility" (i.e. illegality) of Israel's acquisition of territory in the war and it demands the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories OCCUPIED in the recent conflict".

The full text of 242 is as follows:

UN Security Council Resolution 242
November 22, 1967
The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1.Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2.Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3.Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4.Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

There is nothing "fictional" about the right of return. UN Resolution 194 (article 11) specifically states:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
**
No Palestinian leader has the right to give up the Right of Return.

Kim said...

The Zionists did not accept the division of historic Palestine into two states as specified by the UN partition, as you claim.

Instead, Ben Gurion accepted partition as part of a strategic plan which would allow them to expel the Palestinians through war and gain as much of historic Palestine as possible.

Ben-Gurion adopted the strategic plan as early as 1938, when he made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage. At the time he wrote: "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete, p. 403)

Ben Gurion clearly noted in his War Diaries on 03 December 1947 that the Zionists had no intention of abiding by the partition borders drawn up by the UN writing:

"Every school child knows that there is no such thing in history as a final arrangement -- not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements."

Ben Gurion also specifically refused to announce the parameters of Israel's borders in the Declaration of the State of Israel.

When Pinchas Rosen (who became Israel's first chief Justice) argued that the states borders should be included in the Ben Gurion refused. Israeli historian, Tom Segev notes the following exchange between Rozen and Ben Gurion in his book, The First Israelis (which utilises declassified Israeli documents relating to 1948)

ROZEN: "There's the question of the borders, and it CANNOT BE IGNORED."

BEN-GURION: "Anything is possible. If we decide here that there's to be no mention of borders, then we won't mention them. Nothing is a priori."

ROZEN: "It's not a priori, but it is a legal issue."

BEN-GURION: "The law is whatever people determine it to be." (1949, The First Israelis, p. xviii)

Kim said...

There are many relevant Palestinian leaders who are not selling their people out. These Palestinians are at the forefront of the popular struggle, they are the leaders of the struggles in Bilin, Nilin, Nabi Saleh and countless other Palestinian villages.

As Sami Awad wrote earlier this year:

When Leaders Lead
April 3, 2010
by Sami Awad
http://samiawad.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/when-leaders-lead/

For many years, Palestinians have engaged in nonviolent actions aimed at resisting the Israeli military occupation and its violent and humiliating policies aimed at suppressing the will of the Palestinians in seeking to achieve their legitimate aspirations.

Villages and communities have nonviolently protested for several years, and on weekly bases, if not sometimes daily, the stealing of their land in order to build the illegal separation wall or illegal settlements. From Budrus, to Bilien, to Ma’sara, to Gaza we saw and witnessed actions that not only resisted the occupation but also exposed the brutality of the occupation to both the international community and to even Israeli society itself. All these actions were powerful and many protestors were arrested, injured of even became martyrs for Palestine and in the name of nonviolence.
Every once in a while a Palestinian leader or official would come to participate in an action, dressed in an expensive suite, stepping out of an air-conditioned Mercedes, with body guards who were hunting with their eyes for the press and cameras in order to do interviews and not for any potential threat to the official. After one or two interviews and as soon as the protestors begin to walk in the procession, we would look back to only see the rear of the Mercedes driving away as fast as it can… For some strange reasons, important meetings with the top political officials are always scheduled at the same time the protests get into action!

The lack of involvement by the leadership or this symbolic and limited involvement resulted in a growing gap between the people and those who we elected to lead us. Was there a hidden agenda? What are they afraid of? Did they only come for the cameras? Were they even there to ruin the action? These are questions that were always asked. Who needs leadership that is not ready to put itself on the line when people are suffering? Leaders are meant to lead, to be on the front line, no suits, no VIPs, no bodyguards; to go into the unknown and put everything they have at stake, including their own lives in defending those they represent.

Leaders lead and are not the first to retreat. This is what we are now beginning to see. Palestinian Leaders insisting to lead nonviolent protests, taking of their suite jackets and their ties, and ready to tie themselves to olive trees that are going to be uprooted, ready to hold hands with an old Palestinian farmer on one side and a twenty year old international activist with blue hair and demand to walk through an army checkpoint, leaders that are ready to be beaten up and arrested while defending a house that is going to be demolished; leaders that are true leaders, fully committed to nonviolence, not for any political or personal agenda but because they know that this is the way to achieve our dream, even if they end up losing their life.

I do not mention names in this article because any leader who reads this will know in which category they fall. And I am here to challenge those who do not see the true value of leadership to reconsider their position, simply put, we no longer want you to hold titles if you are not willing to lead. The people of Palestine have tasted the sweet taste of true leadership that does not only speak great words and slogans (our ears are filled with those) but that are ready to be leading partners in the new and growing movement of popular resistance. Lead as leaders or step aside and let others take charge.