Annapolis

[Chitah]

Il est temps de s'intéresser à cette discussion qui va avoir lieu à Annapolis.

  Citation

Bush plans talks ahead of Annapolis

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders have arrived for the Annapolis talks without a joint declaration [AFP]

George Bush, the US president, is to hold preliminary talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, in Washington ahead of the Annapolis talks which aims at kickstarting the stalled Middle East peace process.

The meeting comes as Hamas reported an Israeli attack near the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun on Monday.

One Hamas member was killed and two other people injured in an explosion in the area, hospital staff said.

Sixteen Arab nations and the Arab League have agreed to attend Tuesday's one-day meeting with Israel, the first such gathering in more than a decade.

However, expectations are low and Hamas representatives will not be present at the talks.

The two sides are in Washington without having reached an agreement on a joint statement expressing the basic terms for the negotiations.

Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, said the joint statement was not as important as it might have seemed when it was first broached.

"If we get something, if they can agree on some things as an input to the negotiations, that would be fine," Hadley said. "But I think it is really no longer on the critical path to a successful conference."

Negotiations

Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, said the Annapolis meeting was a time to make decisions on permanent status negotiations.

Send us your views

"We don't need to reinvent the wheel," he told Al Jazeera. "We know it is going to be a two state solution."

But Israeli, Palestinian and US negotiators were still trying to put a framework together for the talks, something the US had hoped would be completed by now.

Sean McCormack, a state department spokesman, said: "We're confident there will be a document and we'll get to Annapolis in good shape on that."

But bargaining is expected to continue behind the scenes when the Annapolis meeting gets under way on Tuesday.

Michael Tarazi, a former adviser to the PLO, told Al Jazeera: "It would be a mistake to think that anything meaningful is going to come out of these talks.

"This is a conference where people are going to talk about beginning to talk.

"The real important thing is not what happens at Annapolis, but rather what happens the day after - is there really going to be momentum to address the really thorny issues?"

Arab presence

Washington has pushed for a broad Arab presence at the talks and on Sunday, Syrian media reported that Faysal Mekdad, the deputy foreign minister, would attend.

The presence of Syria, which borders Israel but has no diplomatic relations with the state, is at least a partial victory.

Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, told reporters en route to Washington: "There isn't a single Palestinian who can reach an agreement without Arab support. That's one of the lessons we learned seven years ago."

But she added, "it is not the role of the Arab world to define the terms of the negotiations or take part in them".

On Sunday evening, Erekat and Ahmed Qureia, another Palestinian negotiator, met Livni for unscheduled talks.

Asked if they were optimistic about the prospect for reaching a consensus on a joint declaration, Qureia replied: "You don't meet if you're not optimistic."

David Welch, the US assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, also met Palestinian negotiators on Sunday in an attempt to reach a breakthrough ahead of Tuesday's gathering, a member of the Palestinian delegation said.

Si je me souviens bien, on a ici les mêmes négociateurs que pour Camp David ou presque, Saeb Erekat, Yasser Abed Rabbo côté palestinien. Pour le côté israëlien j'en suis moins sûr.

[José]

  Chitah a dit :

Il est temps de s'intéresser à cette discussion qui va avoir lieu à Annapolis.

Bof… encore un mauvais remake : Le retour de la vengeance du fils d'Oslo.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Un non-événement.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

L'attraction principale, un serrage de paluches entre Olmert et les Saoudiens, n'aura pas lieu. A part ça, j'espère que la bouffe est bonne.

[melodius]

Déjà discuter sans que le Hamas ne soit présent est un non-sens.

[Rincevent]

Et discuter en sa présence serait un immense aveu de défaite.

Bref, cette réunion est condamnée à sombrer dans le grotesque, ou à sévèrement déformer la réalité. Dans un cas comme dans l'autre, ça ne sert personne.

[melodius]

  Rincevent a dit :

Et discuter en sa présence serait un immense aveu de défaite.

On peut dire ça de manière plus neutre : "une reconnaissance des faits".

[Invité jabial]

  melodius a dit :

On peut dire ça de manière plus neutre : "une reconnaissance des faits".

Ca ravirait les extrémistes des deux bords, qui considèrent que la légitimité repose sur la force, et au coup d'Etat du Hamas succéderait très logiquement un coup de force israélien. Que resterait-il à discuter?

[Chitah]

  jabial a dit :

Ca ravirait les extrémistes des deux bords, qui considèrent que la légitimité repose sur la force, et au coup d'Etat du Hamas succéderait très logiquement un coup de force israélien. Que resterait-il à discuter?

Le Hamas a fait un coup d'Etat?

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

  jabial a dit :

Ca ravirait les extrémistes des deux bords, qui considèrent que la légitimité repose sur la force, et au coup d'Etat du Hamas succéderait très logiquement un coup de force israélien. Que resterait-il à discuter?

Des trucs bien plus importants comme la recette ultime du falafel © melodius.

[Invité jabial]

  Chitah a dit :

Le Hamas a fait un coup d'Etat?

Ils ont pris le contrôle d'une partie des territoires palestiniens par la force armée. Tu n'es pas au courant???

[Chitah]

  jabial a dit :

Ils ont pris le contrôle d'une partie des territoires palestiniens par la force armée. Tu n'es pas au courant???

Ah bon, c'est quoi les territoires palestiniens? Jamais entendu parler.

Le Hamas a effectivement pris le contrôle de la Bande de Gazade après de multiples provocations de la part de Mohamed Dahlan, le chef de la sécurité membre du Fatah (parti qui permet de se faire une idée précise du mot "corruption"), dont on se demande si il n'a pas cherché à assassiner le premier ministre, et surtout après avoir gagné les élections municipales de 2005, et les législatives 2006 (majorité absolue).

Le Fatah n'a pas voulu lacher le pouvoir, c'est le Fatah qui a fait un coup d'Etat en l'espèce.

Mahmoud Abbas a eu des exigences de trop avec le parti démocratiquement élu par le peuple palestinien. Même si le Hamas est allé trop loin dans énormément de cas de violence, il faut bien le reconnaître.

[Invité jabial]

  Chitah a dit :

Ah bon, c'est quoi les territoires palestiniens? Jamais entendu parler.

…

  Citation

Le Hamas a effectivement pris le contrôle de la Bande de Gazade après de multiples provocations de la part de Mohamed Dahlan, le chef de la sécurité membre du Fatah (parti qui permet de se faire une idée précise du mot "corruption"), dont on se demande si il n'a pas cherché à assassiner le premier ministre, et surtout après avoir gagné les élections municipales de 2005, et les législatives 2006 (majorité absolue).

Dis-moi, qui a respecté la constitution? Qui l'a violée? Il y a des règles du jeu en démocratie. Une "provocation" ne justifie pas de les violer.

  Citation

Le Fatah n'a pas voulu lacher le pouvoir, c'est le Fatah qui a fait un coup d'Etat en l'espèce.

[Chitah]

  jabial a dit :

Dis-moi, qui a respecté la constitution? Qui l'a violée? Il y a des règles du jeu en démocratie. Une "provocation" ne justifie pas de les violer.

Quelle constitution? L'Autorité Palestinienne n'a pas à proprement parler de constitution, ils ont une loi fondamentale, c'est tout.

Et cette loi fondamentale prévoit que le premier ministre soit choisi dans la majorité parlementaire, à savoir le Hamas, ce que Mahmoud Abbas s'est evertué à ne pas faire. Il a donc violé la constitution, le premier.

Finalement, acculé, il a nommé Ismael Haniyeh. Et il l'a viré en juin dernier pour le remplacer par un non-Hamas.

Le gouvernement palestinien, depuis lors, retranché à Ramallah, n'a aucune légitimité démocratique. Il contrôle effectivement la Cisjordanie, mais pas Gaza. La normalité serait que ce gouvernement se fasse lourder, et se fasse remplacer par un gouvernement légitime.

[Invité jabial]

Ou alors l'autre option : qu'Israël les attaque jusqu'à ce qu'ils arrivent à un accord

Normalement ça devrait les rabibocher vite fait.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

  Chitah a dit :

[…] Le gouvernement palestinien, depuis lors, retranché à Ramallah, n'a aucune légitimité démocratique. Il contrôle effectivement la Cisjordanie, mais pas Gaza. La normalité serait que ce gouvernement se fasse lourder, et se fasse remplacer par un gouvernement légitime.

+1

Le Hamas s'est borné à s'emparer du monopole de l'usage de la force dont il avait déjà la légalité démocratique. Le Fatah aurait commis un coup d'état s'il était resté aux commandes de la bande de Gaza.

[Chitah]

Une lecture très intéressante de la rencontre d'Annapolis, à savoir un meeting entre trois loosers sans légitimité :

  Citation

The true aim of Annapolis, and why it failed

11/12/2007 10:02:00 AM GMT Comments (1) Add a comment

(Reuters) Bush’s words at Annapolis suggested he was playing exactly the part Israel expected of him.

From a U.S. perspective, the meeting was, at best, a diplomatic manoeuvre on the part of the Bush administration, a last chance for becoming relevant to a region that is escaping its grip.

By Ramzy Baroud

The U.S.-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland was neither a success nor failure, if one accepts that its so-called objective was indeed ‘peacemaking’.

From a U.S. perspective, the meeting was, at best, a diplomatic manoeuvre on the part of the Bush administration, a last chance for becoming relevant to a region that is quickly escaping its grip.

At worst, the conference was a desperate public relations charade aimed at convincing the American public that the administration’s plans for democracy and peace in the Middle East are unfolding smoothly.

In both scenarios, the conference was a necessary but fleeting distraction from the prevailing criticism that the Iraq war is a ‘nightmare’ without end.

Bush’s words at Annapolis suggested he was playing exactly the part Israel expected of him. His emphasis on the Jewish identity of Israel, itself a crude violation of the principles of secularism, seems more than a mere gesture to appease the concerns of Israel and its backers in the U.S.; it was actually a subtle acceptance of the ethnic cleansing that continues to define Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. After all, millions of Palestinians have for decades been expelled from their land for no other reason than not being Jewish, while millions of Jews around the world are welcomed ‘back’ to Israel – a land that they never lived in or had prior ties to. Could Bush not have known about this when he emphasised the need for a Jewish state? I doubt it.

So what kind of peace process are we talking about? By any reasonable definition, peacemaking usually occurs to bridge the gap and resolve disagreements between antagonists; friends don’t need to ‘negotiate’ through the use of ‘initiatives’ and ‘painful compromises’ to find a ‘common ground’. While both Israelis and Palestinians are in urgent need for peace to replace the hostility caused by Israel’s illegal military occupation, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could hardly qualify as ‘enemies’ caught in a state of ‘hostilities’ from which they require escape. Indeed, both men are individually beleaguered in many ways and engaged in a war of their own – but not against one another. If anything, both Abbas and Olmert are in a state of political symbiosis, a mutual dependency that borders, strangely enough, on solidarity.

Annapolis was the perfect platform for both leaders to alleviate their individual woes.

Abbas needed the international validation after his non-constitutional response to the clash with Hamas in Gaza. Being unpopular among Palestinians, the survival of his regime is solely dependent on his ability to sustain the patronage system of his authority in the West Bank. Without international funds, U.S. validation, and Israeli permission, Abbas cannot run his nepotistic empire, itself under Israeli military occupation. Therefore he needs to keep up the balancing act, and cannot be expected to infuriate Israel by pushing for serious demands at the negotiating table, scheduled to begin December 12.

Olmert, overseeing a shaky coalition, is gripped by two daunting realities: one, he has no mandate to make any ‘compromises’, painful or otherwise, and two, the fact that a two-state solution is close to becoming obsolete. In a rare frankness, he expressed these fears in an interview with the daily Haaretz right after returning from Annapolis. “The day will come when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights…As soon as that happens, the state of Israel (as an exclusively Jewish state) is finished.”

In retrospect, this helps to explain Bush’s insistence on the Jewish identity of Israel.

What’s ironic is that the same parties that once considered the recognition of the word ‘Palestine’ as blasphemous and anti-Semitic are now advocating a Palestinian state. David A. Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee told the Los Angeles Times, November 30, that even the two-state solution has to be qualified. “No. no. Two-space-nation-space-states. Not just two states, two nation states. A Jewish state called Israel, and a Palestinian Arab state called Palestine. This is the language that Prime Minister Olmert has been using, that Foreign Minister Livni has been using, that President Bush has embraced, and (was also used by) President Sarkozy (of France).”

Olmert, like many Israeli and Jewish Zionist leaders (as opposed to non-Zionist Jews who refuse to subscribe to this archaic mindset) increasingly realizes that Israel’s colonial euphoria is backfiring; the failure to define Israel’s borders – left open with the hope of further territorial expansion – is making it impossible for Israel to achieve total dominance of Jews over Arabs, while still calling itself a democracy. There is hardly a doubt that the bad choices made by Israel in the past are now irrevocable, and that indeed the future struggle will be that of equality within one state.

Rather than being a right, or wrong, step toward peace between two conflicting parties, Annapolis has provided a stage for much sweet talk, hyped expectations and soundbytes for leaders with pressing motivations. Reporters may have been told that Annapolis offered “hope…cautious hope, but hope” by Olmert’s spokesperson, but neither hope, nor breaking the seven year of ‘deadlock’ - as prophesized by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat – are relevant here. The meeting and the year of ‘negotiations’ expected to follow it are part of Israel’s last attempt at ‘preserving’ its Jewish identity, and creating a South Africa-style Palestinian Bantustans. Palestinians will be granted the freedom to call such disconnected islands whatever they wish, and to hoist their flag within the caged entities, if they must, but nothing more.

Although both Bush and Abbas are willing collaborators in this undemocratic endeavour, Israelis must wake up to the fact that their country is knee-deep in Apartheid, and nothing is significant enough to salvage their racially-selective democracy, except true democracy. It’s time for people like Harris to stop talking of ‘two-space-nation-space-states’ and other such nonsense, but instead to invest sincere efforts in finding a formula that guarantees peace, justice and security for both Palestinians and Israelis, without overlooking the historic responsibility of Israel over the plight and dispossession of the Palestinians.

-- Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian-American author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide, including the Washington Post, Japan Times, Al Ahram Weekly and Lemonde Diplomatique. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London). Read more about him on his website: RamzyBaroud.net