OPINION:As life in Gaza deteriorates still further, the leading Palestinian diplomat in Ireland calls for western powers to put pressure on Israel to reach a peace deal, says Hikmat Ajjuri
THE MEETING in Annapolis on November 27th, 2007, could have been a major turning point in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, but unfortunately it looks as if it may turn out to be yet another missed opportunity.
Under the hopeful eyes of the international community, 50 countries, including 16 Arab states and four international institutions, attended it.
It concluded with an agreement to try to reach a peaceful settlement by the end of 2008 - based on a renewed effort to implement the road map to peace as presented by US president George Bush in 2003.
And indeed it did look hopeful at the beginning. To give momentum to Annapolis, Bush visited the region to boost the morale of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in their efforts to bring an end to the decades-long conflict. Furthermore, the visit was meant to emphasise the president's commitment to his vision of two states living side by side in peace.
Soon after Annapolis, Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, made a statement that also inspired me with hope.
"If the time comes when the two-state solution collapses and we face a South African struggle for equal voting rights (for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories) then as soon as that happens the state of Israel is finished," he said.
But, contrary to all his promises at Annapolis, and in an effort to keep his precarious coalition intact, the Israeli prime minister approved his government's decision to build over 300 housing units in Har Homa, an illegal settlement built on Palestinian land. This was a clear breach of the road map, but there was a deafening silence from the Americans who are supposed to monitor adherence to the road map.
Olmert also failed in his promise to ease the pressure on occupied Palestinians by dismantling some of the 600 or more checkpoints that are making the lives of Palestinians hell on earth. As promised, his government did release a few hundred Palestinian detainees, but most were due for release anyway and many more have been arrested in their place.
The lack of action and lack of accountability have only led, time after time, to the perpetration of even more war crimes with impunity against innocent civilians, as evidenced by the tragic and violent events of last week.
In a deliberate and flagrant breach of article 33 of the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilians in time of war, Israel continues to punish the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip collectively by means of the closure as well as by means of military reprisals against persons and property, and by acts of terror and intimidation.
Since the start of last month, Israel has killed more than 126 Palestinians, including 19 innocent children and several women and many members of the same families.
The children killed have included infant babies, aged two days old and five months old, three young boys, brothers from the same family, aged eight, 11 and 14, and several other innocent children at play or in their homes when death cruelly struck them. An entire family, including a mother, father and their three young children, were also among the dead. They were killed in their home in Al-Bureij refugee camp during a missile strike two weeks ago.
This behaviour by Israel clearly undermines the values of Annapolis and threatens to turn it into another missed opportunity. I have no doubt that the Israeli leaders are using the negotiations as a tactic to evade any meaningful pressure from any source, while gaining time to create more changes on the ground, such as expanding settlements and completing the construction of the "apartheid wall" with its continued confiscation of Palestinian land.
In this way, the status quo is constantly challenged, leaving less and less land available for Palestinians.
Furthermore, all these activities, which make a return to the 1967 borders increasingly impossible, are carried out with the unconditional support of the US government.
This support has its basis in the Bush-Sharon understandings of April 2004 when Bush promised Israel that it would be allowed to annex the three major settlement blocs and would not be forced to return to the 1967 borders.
In our region, many believe that all Israeli decision makers, from whatever political party, are different sides of the same coin. I disagree with this, but I must admit it is difficult to see any difference between former prime minister Sharon, the mastermind of the settlement agenda which is proving to be a major obstacle to peace, and those other leaders who have, time and time again, given support to the extension of old settlements and the building of new illegal settlements.
Since 1973, over 130 Israeli settlements and 100 outposts have been built illegally on Palestinian land (contrary to the Geneva Convention) taken by force in the 1967 war.
On the map, these settlements do indeed make the West Bank look like the "Swiss cheese" so eloquently described by Bush .
Ironically, all world powers, including the Americans, have made it clear that these settlements (currently occupied by nearly half a million Jewish settlers) constitute a major obstacle to the possibility of a peaceful settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians. This viewpoint was again emphasised by the leaders of donor countries in the Paris meeting on December 17th that followed Annapolis, but which again has had no impact on what is happening on the ground.
Unless the issue of settlements is tackled seriously and dealt with as a blatant breach of international law, all attempts via bilateral negotiations to reach an agreement leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state, will fail. The settlements are incompatible with the "land for peace" concept upon which all Israeli-Palestinian agreements are founded. They are also incompatible with the concept of democracy, which is why I found Olmert's earlier mentioned statement, contrary to the views of most of his political colleagues, so inspiring.
Hopefully, the leaders of the world's democracies, who have just pledged significant financial support towards preparations for a viable Palestinian state, will be equally inspired and encourage the development of such pragmatic views while maintaining a critique of all proposals and actions by anti-peace politicians.
The current coalition in Israel is very vulnerable, with a small majority of seven seats after the withdrawal of the Beitenu Party - which has 11 seats - in response to the government's decision to re-launch negotiations.
Shas, one of the remaining coalition parties, is now threatening to withdraw its support, with 12 seats, if the issue of Jerusalem becoming the capital of the two states is put on the agenda. If this happens, the coalition will fall leading to early elections.
With the possibility of a new government led by Netanyahu, we could be back to square one and a possible third intifada.
I sincerely believe, therefore, that the time is right for western leaders to use all their powers to press for a final status agreement to be reached now, based on a viable contiguous Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and free of settlements.
This plea is based on the logic that colonialism can never be reconciled with democracy and can never meet the needs of people for development.
Because the alternative is the end of the state of Israel as rightly stated by Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of Israel.
Dr Hikmat Ajjuri is delegate general of the Palestinian General Delegation in Ireland