Home
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
Annapolis Peace Conference
The Annapolis Peace Conference held on November 27, 2007 was meant to be the last attempt for a “Middle East Peace Agreement”. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hosted the conference at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, with the stated intent of producing a substantive document on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the lines of President George W. Bush’s Road Map For Peace with the eventual establishment of a Palestinian State.
This Conference was seen as a win-win situation for all; a lame duck US president leaving office with one of the lowest approval ratings in American history, an Israeli Prime Minister who was facing growing unpopularity and impending corruption charges and a Palestinian President who led a government run by the opposition (and duly elected) party Hamas. What had been billed as a building block to peace in the Middle East was in reality nothing more then a glamorized photo-op.
When Israeli incursions and Palestinian rockets threatened this meeting, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni would proudly boast “Let us not allow dates or political changes to stand in our way…Annapolis will continue,” and so it did with all of the effectiveness of a one legged man in a butt kicking contest.
After Annapolis – The Lie Revealed
Despite Israel’s commitment to freeze construction in its settlements construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem has in fact increased as documented in a 262-page secret government report by the respected Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz which shows that the military has turned a blind eye to the expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian-owned land.
The Israeli Defense Ministry has actively tried to suppress and conceal the information gathered on the settlement construction in a report by Baruch Spiegel, a retired Brigadier General. Israeli Minister of Defense Shaul Mofaz asked Mr. Spiegel to compile a detailed database that would give the government an accurate picture of settlement construction.
The report, which focuses on over 100 unauthorized settler “outposts” as well as 120 “officially authorized” settlements, suggests that the majority of the construction took place without the proper permits, and more than 30 settlements were built in part on land owned by Palestinians.
The defense ministry has not commented on the report, which appears to contradict Israel’s official position that it does not requisition private land for settlements however the Defense Ministry has refused to make the report public on the grounds that the release of the information could harm Israeli security and foreign relations. A petition to require the state to publish all the information has been pending for two years in the Tel Aviv District Court.
An analysis of the data shows approximately 75% of the construction in the settlements was carried out without the appropriate permits or outside of approved plans. The violations include private and public building already issued. In more than 30 settlements, buildings including schools, synagogues, police stations and entire neighborhoods, had been built on private Palestinian land in blatant contravention of Israeli policy and law, as well as the construction of whole neighborhoods on private Palestinian lands.
The Cost – Financial Repercussion and Political Ramifications
Yesh Din, an Israeli Human Rights NGO whose stated purpose is to continuing violation of Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, believes that the leaked government data and any subsequent lawsuits could prove embarrassing and costly for Israel, estimating that the extent of the claims against Israel could amount to tens of millions of dollars or more.
Michael Sfard, Yesh Din’s legal counsel stated “Many Palestinian households now have a valid legal claim against the state of Israel” and can go to court to demand the removal of buildings from their property and reparations for the years the lands could not be used. Mr. Sfard added that if Israel does not compensate them, they will eventually turn to foreign courts. These potentially damaging claims pose the risk of not only financial repercussions, but political backlash, undermining the Israeli position of preferential treatment via “sympathy politics”.
After Annapolis
At the Annapolis Conference Israel and the Palestinians renewed their respective commitments under the “Road Map to Peace” meaning Israel’s primary obligation was “[freezing] all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)” and “immediately [dismantling] settlement outposts erected since March 2001”. Did Israel live up to such promises and fulfill the expectations laid down at Annapolis?
In 2008 tenders for new settlement building increased by 550% from 2007 while actual settlement construction increased by 30% since the Annapolis Conference. In Elon Moreh, near Nablus, the report shows that most of the construction has been carried out without properly approved plans, and that a northern neighborhood was built on private land.
In Ofra, near Ramallah that is home to members of the settler movement elite, “most of the construction” is on registered private land, according to the Defense Ministries Report. In Kfar Adumim, near the largest Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim, east of Jerusalem, new construction is said to trespass onto private land.
By The Numbers – Israeli Lies Documented
Within six months of Annapolis, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has approved the construction of almost 1,000 housing units in several settlements in the West Bank. Israeli authorities also announced plans, approved by Ehud Olmert, for the construction of an additional 2,900 units in settlements in the West Bank, including 750 units in Giv’at Zeev, and 1,900 housing units to be built this year for settlers who had to leave Gaza in 2005.
In addition, Israel worked on the advancement of another 9,500 housing units in and around East Jerusalem, increasing the settlement building around Jerusalem by a factor of 38. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz the municipality of Jerusalem started the process of approving a plan for a new settlement complex with a synagogue in the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan. The Israeli Ministry of Construction and Housing reports current construction projects for almost 4,900 housing units in at least nine “urban” settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem
Since Annapolis, in the southern Hebron district, 766,000 square meters of Palestinian land has been confiscated for the construction of the apartheid wall around the Eshkolot settlement, the number of Israeli checkpoints, roadblocks and other obstacles increased since Annapolis by eight percent from 561 to 607. According to the report, there were 285,800 settlers living in the West Bank as of 2008, with 1,518 new structures built in the territories last year, including 261 outposts.
With over 1,500 new structures built in existing settlements, including 748 permanent buildings and 509 caravans compared to 800 structures in 2007, the post Annapolis numbers increased by 60%. In addition the ground was prepared for the construction of 63 new structures. The New York Times has published a Google Maps-based adaptation of the data
Afterthoughts
With a new cease-fire agreement reached after a 21 day seige on Gaza which resulted in over 1300 Palestinian deaths one can only wonder how serious Israel takes the protection of its citizenry when it not only openly lies to the world, but puts them in danger by entering into cease-fire and peace agreements under false pretenses. When they clearly show no intention of fulfilling their promises, how can the Palestinians even think about dealing with them? They complain about random rocket fire into southern Israel, yet no sooner have the launchers gone cold then more Palestinian land has been stolen. If anyone doubts the sincerity of Hamas or any of the Palestinians I implore you to reconcile logic and reason with Israeli policy in regards to its fulfillment of its obligations as set forth in any current and previous agreements.
“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government” America Declaration of Independence, 1776
For anyone not acquainted with the problems presented by such settlements and outposts, besides the obvious fear and anger one would feel at having his lands stolen from them, it is also illegal. The legality of theses settlements has been called in question since 1967 based on several international legal conventions such as Article 46 of The Hague Convention, Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, UN Security Council Resolution 465 (1980-unanimously adopted) and as recently as the 2004 ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague which condemns the Israeli separation wall and the subsequent settlements around its path.
RSS 
-When two people quarrel, the evil person rejoices.
-When the powerful quarrel, the commoners suffer.
Good article Hamza.
Even if the settlements didn’t exist at all, there would be no peace as long as Israel exists. All claims to the contrary are a smokescreen.
“If anyone doubts the sincerity of Hamas or any of the Palestinians”
You bet I do... If you read and believe the Palestinian National Charter and/or the Hamas Covenant, one can only believe that they are sincere in their desire to destroy Israel:
From the Hamas Covenant:
Article Eleven:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. ”Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.”
Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?
If we’re to believe these articles, no two-state solution is possible and no peaceful solution is possible. Does this sound like an organization committed to peace?
From the Palestinian National Charter:
Article 2:
Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit (by the way, this includes the territory we know as the Kingdom of Jordan, too).
Article 19:
The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; particularly the right to self-determination.
Once again, we have the declaration that no two-state solution is possible.
I’m not excusing the behavior of the Israeli government, but I am contesting your contention that either the PLO or Hamas is really interested in anything but a “one Palestinian state” solution. They declare so in their own Charter and Covenant. Are they lying in those documents?
I would first of all like to thank you for taking the time not only to actually read my article but to also respond to it. I would however like to respond in turn to your comments. You begin right off of the top talking of “smoke screens” followed by quoting half of a sentence of mine, thus allowing you to completely take it out of context - “If anyone doubts the sincerity of Hamas or any of the Palestinians” – you then rattle off the articles of the Hamas covenant so defend your position. Why did you not continue my sentence I wonder? Please allow me to refresh your memory of how it went “If anyone doubts the sincerity of Hamas or any of the Palestinians I implore you to reconcile logic and reason with Israeli policy in regards to its fulfillment of its obligations as set forth in any current and previous agreements.” (Emphasis added to the neglected portion) – This was not a commentary on the Hamas Charter it was in fact a plea for the uniformed to research for themselves, instead of taking my word for it, to put the documented facts against the rhetoric of Israeli Policy. Nowhere did I condone or endorse Hamas, instead I attempted to shed light on the failures and lies of Israeli “peace initiatives” since it is most commonly reported about the Palestinian failures.
You then continue with your analysis of the Hamas Charter stating “If we’re to believe these articles, no two-state solution is possible and no peaceful solution is possible. Does this sound like an organization committed to peace?” and then delve further into their charter, yet still have not looked back towards Israel. Apparently all blame lies with Hamas, although it did not even exist until 1987 – 40 years after the Partition of Palestine and creation of Israel.
“I am contesting your contention that either the PLO or Hamas is really interested in anything but a “one Palestinian state” solution” – Can you please tell me where I said anything relating to that? The closest thing was that I asked for those who doubt Hamas to share that same doubt with Israel, one because of their charter perhaps, and the other because of their actions. I never talked of Hamas or the PLO’s dedication to peace at all; this article was specifically dealing with Israeli policy that is so often overlooked.
When commenting on issues, one should address the specifics of the issue itself and not try to shift focus of the article to another topic, “All claims to the contrary are a smokescreen.” In your entire you dedicated just 9 words to the actual topic (I’m not excusing the behavior of the Israeli government) however you then preference it with your accusations against Hamas. This was exactly the point of my article – everyone blames Hamas and the Palestinian for all peace failures and do not even examine Israeli actions. I leave you with the point previously made, the point of the article “I implore you to reconcile logic and reason with Israeli policy in regards to its fulfillment of its obligations as set forth in any current and previous agreements.” – Thank you again for taking the time to read and comment.
I had no need to expand on Israel’s misbehavior, since you did it so well. However, like Marco Villa, you present your case as if there were no obstacles at all to peace from the Palestinian side, which an uninformed reader might happen to believe.
My response specifically started with the expression, Just a couple of comments from the “other side of the fence”:
Just as you have no interest in pointing out Palestinian culpability for not reaching a peace agreement, I have no interest in expanding on your account of Israeli culpability.
This is called ”debate” where each side puts his viewpoint forward for examination by third parties. Now, just as in a civil court, there are always three versions (the plaintiff’s the defendant’s and the truth), there are three versions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - the Palestinian one, the Israeli one and the truth... which lies somewhere in the middle, not at one end or the other. Any third party deserves to hear both sides and decide for themselves where the truth lies.
I can understand your point, however the Palestinian culpability is plastered on every newspaper and website on a daily basis with the most outrageous headlines and pictures, all designed to invoke a specific reaction – Fear/Hate – which is the same reaction, or emotion that has come with the whole “War on Terror”.
“Just as you have no interest in pointing out Palestinian culpability for not reaching a peace agreement, I have no interest in expanding on your account of Israeli culpability.”
On the contrary, I have slammed everyone at one time or another. I by no means feel that all Palestinian actions are for the betterment of the Palestinians, nor do I feel any political establishment, be it Hamas or Fatah, has the excusive will of the people as their only consideration. My position on Palestinians is however that they have the right to defend themselves against not only immoral and unethical, but illegal occupation; this does not however preclude them from a moral responsibility themselves.
“This is called ”debate” where each side puts his viewpoint forward for examination by third parties.”
This was not however, a debate. This was an article and the commentary on an article, or in your case the lack thereof. I do understand you want to protect your own; however you in fact did not debate anything. If it were a debate you would have argued my position, or called into question the veracity of my facts, what you did however was to give a completely different position while debating nothing at all. On top of that you misled the prospective third party on my positions, specifically stating that I endorsed a notion regarding the peace initiative ideology of Hamas or the PLO (which I never mentioned) – but above all you failed to understand the point of the article which was not to just make a statement to the right or to the left, but to encourage independent examination and reflection regarding Israeli positions. The truth is not something that lies between two views; simply because some views are so far removed from the truth that they are unrecognizable. The truth is simply the truth – facts. Yes sometimes people will interpret those facts differently and therein is where you and I come in.
Let us weigh in with our opinions, and debate the actual topics being discussed, not just throw up smoke and mirrors in an attempt to avoid the true topic.
I do thank you once again for taking your time to exchange in some manner of intellectual discourse rather then the hateful exchanges that have become so common regarding this issue.
From your article, Israel does not keep promises and the expansion of its settlements is continuing , so how could it defend itself like many claim? And how could peace be achieved?
There is no peace if there is no justice.
Thank you for writing this well-informed article Hamza.
Elm