Welcome, criticism and deep suspicion

Review by Khaled Dawoud

But behind the official statements, there were serious doubts that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and extremist members of his cabinet are truly serious about implementing any agreement reached with the Palestinians. Unfulfilled promises and broken deals with many Arab countries are the hallmark of Netanyahu's record since he came to power in June 1996. Moreover, the latest deal, like all previous agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians, is vaguely worded and may be subject to conflicting interpretations.

Several Arab commentators, as well as Assistant Arab League Secretary-General Mohamed Zakaria Ismail, also expressed concern over the security arrangements that are an integral part of the agreement, saying that they may lead to a Palestinian civil war should Arafat go ahead and crack down harshly on his opponents.

Ismail said the Washington deal has turned the Palestinian Authority "into a police force whose main task is to protect Jewish settlers and Israeli borders". By contrast, he added, Israel is not taking any measures to protect Palestinian civilians from attacks by Jewish extremists and settlers.

Ismail raised the question of why the Palestinians should be forced to change their National Charter when Israel "has not announced that it was giving up its expansionist Zionist ideology which is being given public expression by certain members of the present Israeli cabinet". Ismail also criticised what is now known as the "Wye Memorandum" because it failed to ensure the release of more than 3,000 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. Netanyahu has only agreed to the gradual release of 750 Palestinian prisoners. "The agreement is not balanced, although it makes the situation look like the Palestinians have managed to get something after a 19-month stalemate," Ismail said.

Ismail's statements took observers by surprise, especially as they came on the same day that Arab League Secretary-General Esmat Abdel-Meguid issued a statement describing the Washington deal as "an important step on the road towards a just and comprehensive peace". Ismail later said he was only expressing his own opinions and not those of the league.

Lebanese President Elias Hrawi also launched a strong public attack on the deal, as well as on Arafat. "Over the past 50 years, [Palestinians] have held the Arabs responsible for their situation, depleting the resources of all countries involved in the confrontation, and threatening Lebanon with their manoeuvres and tricks," Hrawi said at the opening of a meeting of Arab engineers in Beirut on Monday. "Now they are accepting a quasi-state, without a thought for the status of our occupied south, which was occupied because of them, or the Golan Heights, which Syria lost because of its commitment to Arab rights and dignity. [Arafat] now calls Netanyahu his partner, while the latter publicly states his refusal to withdraw Israeli troops from the occupied Golan Heights and southern Lebanon."

The Lebanese Minister of the Displaced Walid Jumblatt said he expected Israel and the United States, after clinching the latest deal, to increase pressure on Lebanon to accept a settlement with Tel Aviv. "The Israelis will now push for a solution on the Lebanese front, a solution based on their own conditions," he told Al-Ahram Weekly.

The head of the foreign committee of the Lebanese parliament, Ali Al-Khalil, said he expected negative repercussions to result from the Washington deal. "Israel is trying to change the terms of the peace process. Peace negotiations are now based on exchanging peace for security, instead of the land-for-peace formula agreed upon in Madrid [the Middle East peace conference of 1991]." He added that "Palestinian forces will now cooperate with the Israelis to clamp down on the Palestinian resistance."

Palestinians living in refugee camps in Lebanon also demonstrated against the agreement, particularly as they feel that their fate is being ignored ahead of the final status talks due to open shortly. A statement issued by an alliance of Lebanon-based Palestinian opposition groups said the agreement "is nothing but treason and a surrender by the Palestinian Authority. The Authority has completely relinquished the right of the Palestinian people to statehood."

The Iranian-backed Hizbullah, which is leading resistance against Israel in southern Lebanon, also lashed out at the agreement as a "new treacherous deal. Washington and Tel Aviv will now pressure Lebanon and Syria to make concessions," Hizbullah's Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem said.

Reactions in Syria were not very different from those in Lebanon. The agreement was described as a "scandal" and another "surrender" by Arafat. On the official level, Syria did not even bother to comment on the deal until 48 hours after it was signed, indicating that it considers it to be insignificant. Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad had expressed his belief at the time of the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 that each sentence "needs explanations and further negotiations".

Assad and Syrian officials have been critical of Arafat since Oslo, accusing him of failing to coordinate with other Arab countries, thus putting Israel in a stronger position. Arafat has not been welcome in Syria for the past five years.

The Syrian official press criticised the role which the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is allotted to play to assure the implementation of the security arrangements, and warned Arafat against the consequences of suppressing his opponents.

In Jordan, the government hailed the Wye Accord, especially in view of the role played by King Hussein in finalising the deal. But laymen in Jordan were sceptical, saying that the deal would be nothing more than ink on paper. "Netanyahu's security excuses have made him refuse to implement previous agreements. His record is neither good nor bad. We are only betting on whether Netanyahu will implement the accords or not," said Taher Edwan, editor-in-chief of Arab Al-Yom newspaper.

Jamal Nimir, a leftist Jordanian columnist, also expressed doubts whether the fate of the Wye deal would be any different from previous failed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. "It [the deal] is structured around a mechanism of successive phases of implementation, similar to the previous interim accords. Therefore, it is a frail agreement," he said. Nimir also wondered whether the security commitments undertaken by Arafat meant that "Israel now expects each and every member of Hamas to be put in jail."

Officials in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia have all welcomed the deal, while maintaining the same level of caution expressed by most Arab leaders that the real test is implementation.

"Words and accords are one thing; implementation is something else," said Sheikh Mohamed bin Rashed Al-Maktoum, defence minister of the United Arab Emirates. However, he said that the UAE will support whatever the Palestinian leadership agrees to. "As long as the Palestinians are satisfied with the outcome, ... we will support them and wish that they may enjoy the peace and freedom they strive for."