 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 Apr. - 5 May 1999 Issue No. 427 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 Apr. - 5 May 1999 Issue No. 427
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Focus Special Travel Sports People Features Living Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Back to 1947
By Salah Issa *
Most observers agree that the Palestinian state should not be declared on 4 May, but for different reasons. Those speaking from a legal standpoint claim that the Oslo Accord made no provisions for the establishment of a state. Others cite the Israeli elections, arguing that the declaration of a state would only enhance the right wing's chances. The most plausible argument holds that a Palestinian state will be one in name but not in substance, and may encourage Israeli extremists to eradicate the few benefits achieved by the Palestinians so far.
But how long must the declaration of the state be postponed? The Israelis insist that the declaration should come after the final-status negotiations, yet place no limit on the period. The Americans suggest a year, but will not commit to that date; nor will they pledge to recognise Palestine if it is declared next May. The Palestinians do not want to postpone the declaration for more than six months, and demand a US pledge that the negotiations will end within this period, arguing that a delay of a year would bring the date close to the US presidential elections, best serving Israel's interests.
Perhaps Arafat should focus on UN Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine. This would confer legality on the right of Palestinians to establish their state. Still, the option that will prevail, as usual, will be a compromise between the US and Israeli positions -- which is not usually conducive to optimism as far as the future of the peace process is concerned.
*This week's Soapbox speaker is a veteran journalist and political writer.
