 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 18 - 24 February 1999 Issue No. 417 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 18 - 24 February 1999 Issue No. 417
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Special Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters An old card
By Sherine Bahaa"A confederation with Jordan" was former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres' answer, when asked what came next, following the signing of the 1995 interim agreement between Palestine and Israel.
Today, four years later, observers agree that a confederation remains the most likely scenario. In the words of one Arab analyst, "The current situation proves that establishing a Palestinian entity is inevitable, but it also proves this entity will not amount to an integrated state."
Khalil Shkaki, head of the Palestinian Research Centre in Nablus, believes that a majority of Palestinians support the idea of a confederation for "historical, strategic and social reasons." According to Shkaki, Palestinians think that some form of unity between the two populations might be useful. "It might well be asked whether a Palestinian state without some form of unity with Jordan would be viable," Shkaki told Al-Ahram Weekly.
At a regional meeting of his mainstream Fateh faction in Hebron last Friday, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat said that the Palestine Liberation Organisation's (PLO) parliament in exile favoured a confederacy with Jordan, if the country's newly crowned King Abdullah approves of the idea.
"Arafat wanted to confirm earlier positions and reassure Jordanians that Palestinian policy remains unchanged despite the death of King Hussein," said Shkaki.
The timing of Arafat's announcement of the revival of the proposal is one considerable source of controversy. Though some analysts point to his need to find a solution before the 4 May Oslo agreement deadline which is now looming, others regard his statement as an attempt to influence, if not preempt, the Jordanian decision. Abdel-Wahab Elmessiri, an expert on Zionist affairs, inclines to the first opinion. "The confederation with Jordan would represent a way out for him," said Elmessiri, who sees the Palestinian leader as essentially pragmatic. "Arafat's position is very difficult. The Arab states are divided. He is confronting Israel on his own, and he has to rely on his wits to work out a solution for himself."
Political analyst Mohamed Sid-Ahmed subscribes to the second point of view. Sid-Ahmed believes that it is the precarious nature of the regional situation which has induced Arafat to bring the confederation proposal forward once again. "There is a new power structure in Jordan, and it is a vulnerable one," Sid-Ahmed said. He attributes this vulnerability to a number of reasons. A much-loved heir to the throne, who had held that position for 35 years, was suddenly removed, and replaced by an inexperienced young man, who now finds himself king. As Sid-Ahmed points out, it is obvious that not everybody in Jordan is pleased with Hussein's choice of Abdullah as his successor.
Sid-Ahmed believes that Arafat saw an opportunity to raise the matter again, especially as Netanyahu has been obliged to call for early elections. "Netanyahu cornered inside the country, and the Jordanians in a weak position: this is a golden opportunity to put everybody on the defensive with a step of that sort," he explained.
Meanwhile, the United States have unveiled a plan by President Bill Clinton which had been shelved due to the Monicagate trial. The Americans are proposing a tripartite Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian confederation. According to US officials, the Clinton scenario would commit the three partners to a plan which would ensure stability in the region. It would also serve to reinforce the American-Jordanian relationship. An invitation has already been sent to the new Jordanian monarch, King Abdullah, to visit the US and address the Congress.
This is a scenario which does not appeal much to Elmessiri, who views the Americans as inveterate pragmatists. "They never address fundamental issues. That's why they keep cooking up new 'solutions' for the Arab-Israeli conflict," he said. "Will this mean the implementation of the 1948 UN resolutions? Can this confederation solve the problem of the refugees of 1967, or of sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza?" Elmessiri believes that the Palestinian issue has gone beyond political endeavours and pragmatic solutions. For him, Israel was always determined to separate the land from the people, so as to achieve at least a partial fulfillment of the Zionist slogan, "A land without people, that would be modified to read, A land divorced from the people."
He continued: "Unfortunately for Israel, the Palestinians are growing in numbers, they are highly educated and they have the support of the Arab and Islamic peoples. This leaves the Israelis with a problem which so far has no answer in the Zionist lexicon."
However, this does not mean there are no benefits to be drawn from a three-way confederation, should it ever materialise. "It would strengthen relations between the Jordanians and the Palestinians, strengthen the new regime being set up in Jordan and also create a better bulwark against any intrigues or conspiracies that might be hatched at this juncture by people like Ariel Sharon," Sid Ahmed commented. "Moreover, a confederation would put an end to the criticisms now emerging from within the ranks of the Palestinians of the Palestinian Authority."
