-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Phyllis Bennis - Annapolis: The Real Agenda
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Steven L. Robinson - activ-l
Democracy Now - Nov 26, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/26/1515256
Phyllis Bennis on Annapolis
An interview with Amy Goodman
AMY GOODMAN: US officials also asserted the meeting is a chance to
launch dialogue and not a renegotiating session on key issues.
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Wa****ngton, D.C.-based Institute for
Policy Studies, where she focuses on US Middle East policy. Her most
recent book is Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A
Primer. She joins us now from Wa****ngton, D.C.
Phyllis Bennis, what do you expect to happen at this summit?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Very little, Amy. I think there has been a great
successful effort at tamping down expectations. But what has not been
clarified is that the real goal of these meetings also have very little
to do with actually reaching a just and comprehensive and lasting
peace, which of course requires ending Israeli occupation and ending
Israel's policies of apartheid and discrimination.
There are two real goals for this meeting; neither of them have really
anything to do with Palestinian rights, a Palestinian state, Israeli
security or anything else. They are, number one, to shore up Arab
States' sup****t for the US crusades against Iran and Iraq in the
region, and, two, to rebuild Condoleezza Rice's legacy, which right now
is grounded in her being the person who stood before the world in the
summer of 2006, as Israeli bombs were devastating Lebanon, and said,
"We don't need a ceasefire yet." She wants to change that. That's a
huge part of why this meeting is going forward.
AMY GOODMAN: What about the countries who are coming and who are not
coming? {were you] surprised, for example, by Syria?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, the question of whether Syria would participate
has been an on-again/off-again question for some time, and it remains,
frankly, uncertain what role they will actually play. Syria is not
sending their foreign minister, as the other Arab regimes are. They're
sending a deputy foreign minister, a deliberate statement that this is
not quite full participation.
The Syrians had said that they would not participate unless the issue of
Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, which Israel occupied in 1967
at the same time that it occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip; as long as that was on the agenda, they would agree to
participate. They now say that is on the agenda. US officials don't say
that. US officials say that any country who comes is welcome to raise
whatever they want and, quote, "We won't turn off the microphone."
That's very different than saying that it is on the agenda. So, we
don't actually know whether or not there is going to be any op****tunity
for discussion of the Golan Heights beyond whatever speech, whatever
formal speech, the Syrian deputy foreign minister might give.
AMY GOODMAN: And what about the exclusion of Hamas?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, this has been known from the very beginning. The
basis of this conference is grounded in the division within the
Palestinian polity, the divide between the Fatah-led Palestinian
Authority government in the West Bank led by Mahmoud Abbas and the
Hamas-led government in Gaza.
The fiction that exists at this point is that Mahmoud Abbas, the
Palestinian president, is not representing the Palestinian Authority,
but rather representing the Palestine Liberation Organization, the
umbrella organization, which does in fact represent all Palestinians.
This is the same double role or double position that Mahmoud Abbas's
predecessor, Yasser Arafat, played. He was both the head of the PLO and
the president of the Palestinian Authority. The difference, of course,
is that Yasser Arafat, despite widespread dissatisfaction with many of
his policies, was massively recognized as the representative, the
legitimate symbol and political representative, of the entire
Palestinian nation. That is not true of Mahmoud Abbas. There is
enormous opposition to him. The PLO has not been functioning as an
independent organization.
So, this sort of claim that Mahmoud Abbas is there not as the head of
the PA, but rather as the head of the PLO, isn't convincing
Palestinians. And as a result, we see in the latest Palestinian poll
concluded just yesterday 62% of Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories expect failure from the talks in Annapolis. 47% believe
that nothing will change as a result of these talks, despite the fact
that 70% agree with holding peace talks. They just want peace talks
that are really aimed at dealing with the serious core issues, not
peace talks that are designed to be a photo op.
AMY GOODMAN: And how much territory does Mahmoud Abbas control?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: In fact, he doesn't control any territory. He is the
elected president in the West Bank, but the Israeli military is still
very completely in control of that territory, as well as that of East
Jerusalem and Gaza. So, in fact, he doesn't control the territory at
all. He is the Authority's elected leader. But the Authority is
governing crumbs, if you will, while the Israelis maintain control of
the whole loaf.
The question that remains is how far is Mahmoud Abbas and his team
prepared to go to make additional concessions in the name of the
Palestinians, whether on issues of territory, particularly the question
of settlements and most im****tantly, I think for many Palestinians, the
question of the right of return. There have been claims from the
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he would not negotiate with
anyone, including Mahmoud Abbas, who did not agree as a precondition to
accept, in Israel's words, "Israel's existence as a Jewish state and as
a state of all the Jewish people," meaning, Amy, that Jews like you and
I, who have no ties in Israel, would have more rights permanently as
quasi-citizens of Israel than the Palestinians who were expelled from
the territory that is now Israel back in 1947 and '48, that there would
be no right of return, except to a putative Palestinian state that
might be assembled out of some disconnected Bantustans in parts of the
West Bank. That's the proposal of the Israelis.
The US has agreed to that territorial approach, that the right of return
would not apply, that Palestinians would be allowed to return, quote,
"only to the new Palestinian state," even if that was not their former
homeland. Whether Mahmoud Abbas will, in fact, say those words, endorse
that position, remains uncertain. Most Palestinians have said, he could
not do that and survive as a political leader. Saeb Erekat, who we just
heard from a moment ago, has said that the Palestinians will not accept
the Israeli definition of Israel as a Jewish state and the state of the
entire Jewish people, as opposed to being the state of all its
citizens, including of course the 20% of Israeli citizens who are
Palestinian. Whether that will, in fact, prevail as the official
Palestinian position, we simply don't know yet.
AMY GOODMAN: And two other questions about Lebanon and Iran. Lebanon,
the fact that it doesn't have a president right now, how will this
play? And, of course, Iran -- here you have this gathering, mainly of
Middle East leaders; what is the US pu****ng around Iran?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, on the question of Lebanon, the political crisis
is very strong. There is no agreement yet on -- between the two
almost-equal factions in the government about how to choose the
successor to President Lahoud, who just resigned at the end of his
term. There are new negotiations scheduled for this coming weekend. But
it does mean that Lebanon, even if other parties are discussing it --
for example, the Syrians or the Israelis -- the Lebanese are not in a
position to play much of a role at this conference. I assume they will
send an official delegation, but it will be understood that it will not
be a delegation that is authorized to speak in any definitive way.
The question of Iran, of course, is very central. Even European
diplomats, even the Israeli Meretz Party and many others around the
world, are acknowledging that this summit has more to do with Iran than
it does with the Palestinians. This is a summit designed to shore up
Arab States' sup****t for the US escalations against Iran. This is a
situation in which most Arab regimes would be only too happy to jump
into bed with the US in attacking Iran. The problem is that the Arab
people in all those Arab countries are not so keen on that, do not see
Iran as a major enemy. So, in order to gain political credibility at
home and avoid being overthrown, in some cases, those governments need
to be able to give their people something. The US is essentially
throwing them a bone, saying, "Here, give your people this, so that you
can come onboard our anti-Iran crusade and stay onboard our war in
Iraq." The bone they are throwing to the Arab regimes is this photo op
in Annapolis.
AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis, I want to thank you for being with us,
fellow at the Wa****ngton, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies. Her
latest book is called Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A
Primer.
*
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Our main website: http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHTAfJiz2i76ou9wQRAuU1AJ4zwa5vmB7R3coTPz+A1vFgJ1OyrgCfeVtc
8TooJjSxxKnuHaCbDklSwjU=
=uFSG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
