Letter From Europe
Nothing new at Annapolis
It was an unusual sight; there was something almost surreal about it. A man who has plunged the Middle East and the neighbouring countries into complete chaos and shown his unmitigated contempt for the suffering of the Palestinian people for the last seven years appeared on November 27 at the Memorial Hall of the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and expressed his sudden enthusiasm for the creation of a Palestinian state.
With much pomp and ceremony he declared: "We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation: A democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security." From a historical point of view, there was nothing new in this proposition. The ill-conceived Balfour Declaration of 1917 (the mother of all conflicts) implied the idea of two states. The United Nations Resolution of 1947 called for the establishment of two states. Then, of course, the Oslo Accords of 1993 also endorsed the same idea.
Even then, I looked at the television screen with incredulity, and thought that, maybe with age and experience, Bush had become wiser and understood a little better the realities of the situation in the Middle East.
But a closer examination of the speech soon revealed that nothing substantive had changed. Under intense US pressure, Olmert and Abbas have merely agreed "to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations" to reach an agreement over the creation of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008. (By the way, Olmert and Abbas have been meeting regularly for the last several months without producing any tangible results, even to improve slightly the Bantustan type living conditions of the ordinary Palestinians.)
The agreement -- or joint understanding as it was called -- does not address any of the fundamental issues that have bedevilled the relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis for the last sixty years or so.
In recent months, President Bush and Secretary Rice have repeatedly promised their sincerity and "personal commitment" to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Rice went so far as to say "we are not going to tire until I have given my last ounce of energy and my last moment in office to working for a two-state solution."
These are fine words. But in real life fewer words and sharper focus on fundamental issues produce better results. In order to convince the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Muslims at large of their sincerity, Bush and Rice need to address the following fundamental issues:
Bush declared that the objective of the Annapolis conference was to establish a democratic Palestinian state. What does he understand by democracy? Will he recognise a democratically elected government and work with it, no matter whether it is led by Hamas or Fatah or any other group of Palestinians? By the way, Hamas won the last internationally supervised elections in Palestine by an ample majority.
Why do they keep insisting on the prior recognition of Israel by all the Palestinians, when Israel has not recognised the existence of Palestine for the last fifty-nine years?
Why are they so worried about the security of Israel alone? After all, its security is guaranteed by the US, the world's only superpower. Why not spend a little time thinking about the security of the Palestinians and other Arabs as well? Bush still does not realise that this long occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel is "an egregious assault on the identity, dignity and security of Muslims everywhere."
How independent will the new state of Palestine be? Will it be allowed to have its own armed forces to defend its territorial integrity, or merely a lightly armed police force for internal purposes? Will it be allowed to control its airspace, water resources, electricity and maritime affairs?
What are going to be the final borders of Palestine? What about the United Nations resolutions on this subject? What about the pre-1967 borders? Does Bush still stand by his commitment (apparently in writing) to Ariel Sharon's colonial policies on Israeli settlements in the West Bank?
By the way, while paying lip service to the idea of the creation of a Palestinian state, Sharon's successor, Olmert has been vigorously pursuing Sharon's policy of building more settlements and expanding the existing ones, which has made it impossible to create a Palestinian state on contiguous land.
Palestinian villages and towns have become disconnected enclaves like South African Bantustans. (Sharon graciously! said many years ago that he did not care very much whether the Palestinians wanted to call their enclaves as a state or states or cantons.) Does Bush support this apartheid policy?
Will Bush push Olmert to take down the 650 kilometre long Apartheid Wall, built on Palestinian land, which delves deep into Palestinian territories to include many Israeli settlements, and to control Palestine's critical water resources?
What will happen to the Apartheid highways (with two pairs of lanes separated by tall walls) like the highway between Ramallah and Bethlehem? These are being built with the sole purpose of retaining most of the settlements on Palestinian land under Israeli control.
What will happen to Jerusalem? The way Israeli settlement activity and road construction have continued in and around East Jerusalem under Olmert gives the impression that the Israeli government wants to cut the city off from the West Bank.
Will the Palestinian refugees who were forced to leave Israel have the right of return?
On Monday, in the Oval office, Bush told Abbas: "The United States can not impose our vision." Recently Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, repeated more or less the same thing. He said: "The president made clear that it is the parties themselves that have to make peace."
So, what is the conclusion? Frankly speaking, I am very pessimistic about the outcome. Until now, Israel has been allowed by the US to pursue its colonial policy in Palestine without any impediment.
Now, armed with the latest American military hardware including F-22 jetfighters, Israel feels strong enough not to make any substantive concessions to the Palestinians.
While ignoring "the crushing realities of life under a brutal occupation" and all that they entail, Bush continuously talks about the need to end Palestinian violence and extremism.
He still does not realise that the forty-year occupation is the root cause of desperation and violence. Unless he is willing to lean heavily on Olmert, no progress in his peace efforts will be made, and the Annapolis conference will only be remembered as an elaborate photo opportunity. The unending cycle of violence will continue, perhaps with greater virulence.
Eventually, Palestinian demography and the end of American hegemony will deal with the situation.
Chaklader Mahboob-ul Alam is a columnist for The Daily Star.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments