 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2008, pages 56-57 Waging Peace Halfway Through Annapolis
AT A JUNE 3 briefing at the Palestine Center in Washington, DC, advisers to the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department reflected on the limited progress made by Israeli and Palestinian officials in the six months since the Annapolis conference, and addressed the requirements for, and obstacles to, progress in the six months ahead. It was decided at Annapolis, explained Khaled Elgindy, policy adviser for settlements, that progress should occur on “two tracks”—negotiations about permanent status issues and implementation of the 2003 road map—but Israeli failure to fulfill its road map obligations has undermined the permanent status negotiations. Pointing in particular to Israel’s obligation to a cessation of all settlement activities under Phase One of the road map, Elgindy noted that “no settlement freeze of any kind” is being implemented in the West Bank, as 847 housing units were tendered in the six months since Annapolis, compared to 138 in the prior 12 months. Maen Areikat, deputy-general of the Negotiations Affairs Department, argued that the focus on the settlements in the previous day’s meeting between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was evidence that such Israeli actions were distracting the leaders from focusing on “the main issues,” such as refugees and the future of Jerusalem. Extensive settlement activity in Har Homa, in particular, which would complete a ring of settlements around East Jerusalem, is presenting a serious obstacle to discussions about the fate of East Jerusalem, said Areikat, who reaffirmed the Palestinian requirement for “Two Capitals for Two States” dividing Jerusalem along 1967 lines, including the Old City. Areikat also explained that Israel’s renewal in February 2008 of its closure order for Orient House (the PLO’s headquarters), and its revocation of residency rights of Jerusalem’s Palestinians to “artificially Judaize the city” provided a “clue into what Israeli intentions are in Jerusalem.” Elgindy also pointed to ongoing settlement and wall activity as an obstacle to Palestinian sovereignty goals, which he reiterated as 1967 lines with minor modifications by a one-to-one land swap, and a link between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Though Elgindy saw the obstacles on the ground as a great impediment to negotiations, he also pointed to considerable obstacles at the negotiating table. Progress, he said, is particularly slow with regard to the issue of refugees, as Israel refuses to recognize its responsibility or Palestinians’ right of return, or to offer restitution, accepting only indirect compensation. In spite of these obstacles, Areikat, Elgindy and Rami Dajani, legal adviser for security, remained fairly hopeful. The goal remains “conclusion with agreement on all issues and address the core issues without exception,” said Areikat. As to whether that goal is realistic, he expressed the belief that there is at least “a desire by both sides to conclude something by the end of this year.” —Kay Argyll |
|||||
