In the Face of the Annexation Project, on the way to expel the occupation

2020-06-18

Written by Comrade Fahd Suleiman; deputy Secretary General of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine

[■Over a little more than a quarter of a century, from the Madrid-Washington negotiations (10/30/1991), until the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States (20/2/2017), 4 American Presidents have received (George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr, Barack Obama ) the file of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and they all failed to bring the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to a political settlement.

■ Despite the apparent bias of the American position on the Israeli side, and its permanent lack of integrity, transparency and neutrality together, successive American administrations were keen to preserve the minimum foundations and standards that kept the American role as an acceptable mediator, from the official Palestinian side, including: dependence 4 June borders «with an agreed-upon exchange of land» as a basis for drawing the borders; A negative attitude towards settlement ranged from softness, such as saying that it constitutes an obstacle to reaching a solution, (what he meant in practice: accepting it as a fait accompli, with expressing dissatisfaction with it, or transient protest against it); such as the stance taken by the Obama administration in the Security Council in passing draft resolution 2334 (December 2016) without declaring the veto to overthrow it, which condemns settlement, and considers it a violation of international legitimacy, and affirms Jerusalem as part of the occupied Palestinian territory in 1967.

Among these foundations as well: Adherence to Resolution 242 as a basis and reference for the political process + resolving the refugee issue within several options, including, in addition to the settlement that is (Basically rejected), the containing of the Palestinian state to numbers of them, with a symbolic return only, of limited numbers to the 48 areas + Direct borders of the State of Palestine with Jordan, even though there are multinational forces on the borders of the valley (Clinton's proposals), or by stationing American forces (John Kerry's proposals) + Jerusalem is geographically united, on the basis of sovereign division of East Jerusalem +, etc ...

■ The American role was not limited to what was mentioned, but was surpassed by the progress of three initiatives, which were suspended by successive Israeli governments, without exception:

A ) Clinton's criteria in December 2000, following the failure of the Camp David negotiations (July 2000).

B ) The Annapolis process (November 27, 2007 - early December 2008), under the auspices of Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State for the second term of George Bush Jr.

C )John Kerry Initiative (2013-2014), while his mandate over the State Department in Obama's second term.

■ All of these positions and initiatives (without forgetting the "Road Map plan" - 2003, which was forgotten, and which the Sharon government disrupted by proposing the 14 conditions that led to thwarting it), did not have an actual pressure on the Israeli side, which is covered by the political process, in case the negotiations stop or resume, to continue imposing the fait accompli by settlement. At the same time, the political process provided the American side, in the equations of the Arab parties involved in the negotiations, and with it the Palestinian side, the advantage of the site of the "sponsor of the peace process", with the political gains that resulted from it.

■ The negotiating process, and political efforts in general, have remained in place for the Palestinian side, which has had a declining influence on the conflict equation. While it provides one opportunity after another to the Israeli side to build field facts, it has increased the laying of more mines in the field of the political process, which contributed to exacerbating its complications, and reflected the restraint of the American “mediator” dynamic and narrowed its movement margins, to the unsuccessful efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry in charting a new course for negotiations, Israeli intransigence in rejecting all initiatives to stop settlement construction exceeds, and the failure of success has turned into a famous failure.■]

(1)

The Trump Administration ... The sharp turn

Entering the Annexation Stage

1- ■ With the Trump administration arriving in the White House in January 2017, American policy in the broader Middle East region (extending from the coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan) witnessed a sharp turn, which reflected itself directly and very clearly, on the Palestinian issue with the foundations and mechanisms for solving it (meaning both solution and liquidation at the same time); The United States saw, during its reformulating of its political equations over the region, that the threat to its interests and the interests of Israel comes from Iran, the rising power, and the growing power in the region, and described it as «terrorism», taking the ranks after 9/11/2001, and worked in order to establish an Arab alignment in this manner, what - in turn - required the establishment of alliances (at least intersections) that included under its umbrella Israel and some Arab countries.

■ In the same context, the American administration considered that the Palestinian issue constitutes the major obstacle in the way of building the above-mentioned regional alliances, and that the resolving of this obstacle constitutes a necessary condition for the success of its project. From here, the United States, in the May 2017 conference in Riyadh, in the presence of the American president and representatives of 55 Arab and Muslim countries, rushed to the declaration, adopting what has become known as the "Deal of the Century" with its two tracks: Regional, aimed at establishing an alliance throughout the region to confront Iranian influence and defeat it if possible, and from its outskirts Israel alongside some Arab countries, and the Palestinian, through progress on the path to resolving the Palestinian issue and the Israeli conflict, and an Arab-Israeli following, to remove obstacles in front of the Arab-Israeli normalization, and the establishment of the regional alliance, noting that normalization, or building partnerships, is the euphemism for strategic, security, and economic relations, between Israel and certain Arab countries; Indeed, some (as Hamad bin Jassim, the former Prime Minister of Qatar) go to the next step after announcing the "Deal of the Century", would be "a non-aggression agreement between Israel and the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council", which rises above the normalization level, without advancing To the level of a "peace treaty".

2- ■ The American strategy to implement the "Deal of the Century" in its Palestinian track was based on thwarting the international legitimacy decisions as a basis for a political settlement and accepting the reality as it is on the ground, as facts that should be recognized to launch the political process, and indeed be accomplished between the Palestinian and Israeli sides. This "deal", which turned into a "vision", whose elements are released in batches, has been presented to each of the following, through 3 main stations:

• The first, on 12/6/2017, to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, transfer the United States embassy to it (14/14/2018), merge the American consulate in East Jerusalem in the embassy, and transfer its functions to its authority staff , in order to unify the American representation in the city, as Unified and under Israeli sovereignty, and the embassy’s adoption of the only route for the relationship with the Palestinian Authority, after the consulate had assumed this role.

• The second, on 25 and 26/6/2018, by the holding of the economic workshop in Manama, the capital of Bahrain, under the slogan "Peace for Prosperity", as it is the economic part of the "Deal of the Century", and the regional solution to conflict in the region, in restoring and developing previous US projects Through the adoption of solutions and economic bribes, a pressing approach to address the issues of some countries in the region, especially those steeped in foreign debt.

As for the Palestinian side, the submitted project meets with the Netanyahu project for what he called (since 2009) the "economic solution" to the Palestinian cause, on the pretext that this solution compensates for the adherence to national rights, so the generalization of prosperity among peoples is the alternative to the conflict around the land, water, sovereignty, national rights, and self-determination ... in the region.

The Bahrain workshop had its political repercussions, as it constituted the gateway to a new stage of announced normalization, when some Arab delegations attended, in addition to the Israeli delegations that took for themselves different characteristics.

• The third, on 01/28/2020, in the official announcement of the political aspect of "Trump's vision" (Deal of the Century), at a press conference held by the American President at the White House with the participation of Netanyahu, whose focus is the liquidation of the Palestinian national cause in all its national liberating aspects, within the framework of the right Self-determination for a people fighting for its rights, through the establishment of gates of autonomous administration with limited powers in the cave of the Greater State of Israel. The "annexation" is the main title of this liquidation solution, which equals annexing a third of the West Bank to the Israeli entity.

3- ■ The penetration of these main stations, followed by a series of hostile attitudes and steps towards the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, represented by the following: A) Closure of the PLO Commission in Washington; B) Cut off economic aid to the PA; C) legalizing of settlement through what has come to be known as the "Pompeo Doctrine"; D) The announcement of a series of positions leading to the liquidation of the refugees issue.

■ On the issue of settlement, the American administration has conferred legal legitimacy on it as "not inconsistent with the international law" against the legal opinion that issued by the US State Department in 1978, which conclusively describes its clarity that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories in 1967 "«contradict the international law" ». In this context, Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, stated: “In the light of the special situation implied by the facts, history and circumstances arising in the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank, we will no longer see Israeli settlements - per se - as an issue inconsistent with international law »(18/11/2019).

David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, goes further when he considers the Palestinians in the West Bank merely to be “residents”, in addition to Palestine being the land of Israel (in his speech to the Begin Center for Studies, on 8/1/2020). This, as was pointed out, is what became known as the "Pompeo Doctrine."

As for the refugee issue, the American administration has taken the following steps: A) The call for a redefinition of the Palestinian refugee to be restricted to those born in Palestine before 1984, and thus the removal of the political-legal status of the other refugees; B) Stopping the US contribution to funding the UNRWA budget, and pressuring donors to do the same in order to reach reduction its resources and transfer its jobs and services to the host countries; C) Pressure the United Nations not to renew the agency's mandate, pursuant to resolution 302, leading to its formal dissolution.

4- ■ Announcing the "Trump's vision" on January 28, 2020, moving the issue of annexation in Israeli politics from the margin to the main body, and that policy based on settlement colonialism, that is, the seizure of land as an absolute priority, moved, was marked by more ferocity in expansive tendency.

■ The US administration did not stop at the borders of its blessing for annexation, which expanded its circle to include the lands of the occupied Syrian Golan in the year 67, but rather moved to being a partner in mapping through the joint American-Israeli committee that was entrusted, starting from 15/2/2020, drawing lines the annexation throughout the West Bank, and the separations between the major areas of Israel and the "Palestinian entity" which trapped behind its tracks.

In response to the international positions that were unanimous in rejecting the annexation from Russia to China, through the European Union and the broader spectrum internationally, the United States Secretary of State challenged the will of the international community (5/13/2020) by claiming: “It is the right of Israel to decide to impose its sovereignty on the settlements”

■ So the issue has entered the annexation stage, not only within the limits of the political declarations of the US administration and Benjamin Netanyahu, but the annexation project has become the new Israeli government's action plan, between the Netanyahu-Gantz duo, which was confirmed at its first meeting on 5/17/ 2020, and on the basis of it won the confidence of the Knesset with 73 votes, and Netanyahu announced the month of July 2020, a date for starting the implementation of the project, without this means that a series of administrative and field measures had not preceded this date, and had begun to pave the way for it, for example, connecting the settlements in the West Bank to some ministries of the occupation government directly, as a form of extending Israeli sovereignty over the settlements; the Civil Administration of the occupation has also begun to open lines of daily relationship with some municipalities in the West Bank, such as the payment of electricity and water fees directly from them, and not through the Civil Administration coordinator in the government of the PA. Among these indications, too, is the prohibition of the raising of the Palestinian flag in the Jordan Valley, and the beginning of the demolition of a number of buildings and homes and the displacement of its residents in the context of reducing the Palestinian presence in the candidate-annexed areas.

5- ■ Israel is preparing to annex areas in the West Bank in a gradual manner, starting with the major settlement blocs (Ariel, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim, ...), within the assessment that external reactions to this annexation will be absorbable, since the aforementioned groups belong to a category the lands that will be transferred to Israel in the framework of the "land exchange" process, which is recognized - even from the Palestinian negotiating side - as one of the pillars of the negotiated solution, even if the Palestinian side objects to this, citing the logic of: “Unless we agree on everything, we will not have agreed on something », whose effect remains modest in a world in which the proportion of forces is decided, and the political outcomes are decided.

■ In all cases, entering the annexation stage, which differs qualitatively from all of its predecessors, will create new facts. It is:

A) It changes in the legal, political, and practical realities of the settlers and the annexation areas, which were under the military rule, and the Israeli legislation has no direct effect (including the settlements), so the Israeli law becomes applicable to it as it applies in the State of Israel, which - among other things - facilitates measures to confiscate the Palestinian lands in favor of expanding the settlement map.

B) It changes in the reality of the PA, in terms of reducing the area of its jurisdiction and administrative powers, encouraging the Palestinian citizens, under de facto power, to bypass the institutions and ministries of the PA, and to deal directly with the Israeli administrations in light of their ambiguous "legal" status, as residents of "the land" of Israel. This means - in the foreseeable future - likely to further reduce its powers, its role, and its relationship with its citizens.

C) It changes in the relationship with neighboring countries, and in particular, with Jordan, especially after the borders are transformed under the Israeli law into Jordanian-Israeli borders, and not into Jordanian-Palestinian borders; the same applies to Gaza's relationship with Egypt.

D) It will negatively affect the stability of a number of countries in the immediate neighborhood, as well as the refugees situation in the host countries in light of their reaction to the new facts, which indicate the enhancement of opportunities to implement the settlement plan (and in its extension displacement) ■

(2)

The Palestinian's Response in the accounts of the National Institution

[Before proceeding to review the Palestinian response to the annexation decision, we find the benefit of recalling recent facts, with the aim of highlighting what must be avoided in the current confrontation to the serious annexation scheme, as it is the highest stage of settlement colonialism, which based on appropriation of land first and last, and « decreasing the burden of the aborigines of the land; From this point, the Zionist settlement colonialism does not differ from other events witnessed by history in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Algeria, ... in its dealings with the indigenous people, whereas the local, regional and international powers that were settling the conflict: ethnic cleansing, as in the case of the Americas; or the displacement of the invading settlers, as in the case of Algeria, Rhodesia, Mozambique; or a coexistence between different ethnic groups, merging with its components under the umbrella of "constitutional patriotism" in the form of one nation on the basis of citizenship, equality in rights and duties, as is the case of South Africa; or any other formulas, but we affirm that the data of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, no matter how the Progress and decline is of its path, It indicates in the outcome of its main line the progress of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, and its victory at the end, whatever the difficulties it is currently facing.]

After the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were completely suspended in April 2014, the issue of the relationship with the occupying power and the agreements signed with Israel occupied an advanced position on the agenda of the leadership bodies of the PLO. In this context, the relevant decisions issued which successively came from the sessions of the Central Council: 27-5 / 3/2015; the 28-15 / 1/2018; 29-17 / 8/2018-2020; the 30- 29/10/2018. (See the full text of these decisions in the chapter entitled: “In defining the relationship with the occupation authority - the decisions of the Central and National Councils,” p. 239-245 of the book “Palestinian Files (1/2): Refugees ... the Central Council”, which has the number 36. In the series "The Way to Independence", issued by the Palestinian Center for Documentation and Information (file), 1st edition: January 2020.

In the same context, we refer to the extremely important decisions issued by the 23rd session of the Palestinian National Council (30/4/2018), including what was mentioned under the title “Second - the relationship with the occupying power (Israel)” - paragraph 2, based on 8 points which are all in the same degree of importance, we are satisfied with mentioning 4 points of them, for their significance: «(...) The National Assembly:

A) Announces that the transitional period stipulated in the agreements signed in Oslo, Cairo and Washington, with their obligations involved, no longer exists.

D) Instructs the Executive Committee to suspend recognition of Israel until its recognition of the State of Palestine on the borders of June 4, 67, and to cancel the decision to annex East Jerusalem and stop settlement activity".

E) Emphasizes the necessity of implementing the decision of the Central Council in its last two sessions (27 and 28) to stop security coordination in all its forms and to be free from the economic dependency relationship determined in the Paris Protocol, including the economic boycott of occupation products, in a manner that supports the independence and growth of the national economy, The Council affirms the necessity of the commitment of the Executive Committee and the institutions of the State of Palestine to start implementing that.

C) Adopting the boycott movement (B.D.S) and withdrawing investments from Israel, and calling on the countries of the world to impose sanctions on Israel to deter their flagrant violations of international law, and to curb its continued aggression against the Palestinian people".

It was formed at that time 9 committees, to implement these decisions, in sequentially, the outcome of its work remained suspended, for reasons in which several factors converged, including: The subjective factors: lack of political will, the division, there is no existence of a single leadership center for the entire Palestinian movement , that is able to assume responsibility to manage an ultra-complex battle. The thematic factors: which resulted of the structure nature of the PA, which is subjected in the main and necessary issues for the life of any society and any political entity to the occupation decision. And finally, the prevailing political circumstance in the Arab world and in the region: which is divided between that which is compliant with American policy, or is incapable of confronting it, or that is preoccupied by its internal affairs, etc. ■