 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 June 1999 Issue No. 433 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 June 1999 Issue No. 433
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Books Living Travel Sports Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters The writing on the wall
By Lamis Andoni *For four years, Washington's dread that Netanyahu would kill the peace process, and the ensuing "American-Palestinian affinity", fostered predictions of a fundamental shift in American policy. President Clinton's speech in Gaza and, more significantly, his letter of assurance to President Arafat, reinforced this impression. For the past two years, the Palestinian leadership has sought to downplay its differences with Washington as part of its attempt to widen the rift between Washington and Israel. The Palestinian leadership even accepted disadvantageous terms and compromises with its eyes on the possibility of a breakthrough in the stalled peace process. The carrot America is dangling, but which has never actually been promised, is the endorsement of Palestinian self-determination.
It would be naive not to read the writing on the wall. The US administration clearly sought to placate the Palestinians and thereby minimise Netanyahu's systematic destruction of American attempts to integrate Israel into the region through the peace process. The stalled talks, combined with an aggressive and tactless Israeli land grab campaign, had effectively frozen the peace process on all of its tracks. But the threat of a Palestinian eruption of anger could have inflicted irreversible damage on the peace process.
Unfortunately, "placating" the Palestinians was not that difficult. Vague words of American sympathy were more than sufficient to prevent an effective campaign of (non-violent) Palestinian resistance -- with the help of the tight grip imposed by PNA security (and monitored by the CIA) on political dissent -- and to pre-empt any alternative Palestinian strategy.
Now that the danger appears to have receded, the US has less incentive to "appease" the Palestinians. Nor is it bound by promises to halt Israeli settlement construction -- let alone abet Palestinian independence. Even more significantly, the post-election political map in Israel, even before the formation of a new government, breathed new life into the peace process by allowing an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and a potential Syrian-Israeli breakthrough. The revival of the peace process is taking place despite -- indeed, at the same time as -- the most dangerous Israeli move against East Jerusalem witnessed of Netanyahu's reign: the connection of Ma'ali Adumim to West Jerusalem.
The US's mild reaction to this dramatic turn of events, combined with Ehud Barak's declarations to continue providing "full services" to the settlements, merely confirm that the US is more concerned with the continued expansion of Arab-Israeli relations than with the Palestinians' plight.
The Palestinian leadership could turn the tables were it to engage in collective resistance to the Israeli onslaught, rather than empty posturing and sloganeering. This, however, cannot be done without a reassessment of the American position. Barring any secret "promises" to the Palestinian leadership, the facts are reason for pessimism. The arguments of the self-described pragmatists are based on the premise that the US is no longer strategically opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is certainly true -- if a Palestinian state is a euphemism for an entity defined, sanctioned and controlled by Israel.
In 1993, a senior American official, who is still involved in the peace process, told me that a Palestinian state would undermine the legitimacy of Israel for two reasons. First, it would legitimise Palestinian national rights to the historic land of Palestine; second, it would pose a threat to Israel.
The situation has definitely changed. The world, thanks to decades of Palestinian resistance and the Intifada, now acknowledges the need for a Palestinian entity. Moreover, the Intifada convinced many Israelis that "separation" will guarantee Israeli security. But the terms set by Oslo and subsequent agreements allow Israel to determine the size, form, power, and nature of this entity. The US has been instrumental in ensuring not only that a Palestinian entity will be defined by Israel, both in scope and form, but also that Israel can veto its creation.
The US has made binding policy statements to this effect, unlike the letter of assurance Clinton sold the Palestinians. The terms of Israel's domination were made unequivocal in the Hebron Protocols and, later, in the Wye Memorandum. Both the infamous letter by former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and the Notes of the Record written by special envoy Dennis Ross as an annex to the Hebron Protocols stipulate that Israel controls the scope and size of its troop redeployment from West Bank territories.
This policy was consolidated through a ferocious campaign, stepped up last February, to prevent the PLO from reaffirming UN recognition of Palestinian national rights, including Resolution 181. Mr Ross underscored the importance for the US of preventing the revival of the 1947 Partition Plan (Resolution 181), by warning the Palestinians recently that it was not part of the terms of Oslo. In a speech to the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC, Mr Ross warned that the terms of reference defined in Madrid and Oslo are Resolutions 242 and 338 and land for peace; "any other basis is not relevant and is not appropriate."
Meanwhile, the US is continuing its campaign against a scheduled UN conference which would make Israel adhere to the Fourth Geneva Convention -- legally and practically the Palestinians' most potent ammunition. If applied, it will render Israeli settlements, expropriation of land, annexation of East Jerusalem, demolition of houses, and theft of Palestinian water and resources absolutely illegal.
In contrast to this campaign, and to the binding policy statements mentioned above, Clinton's letter in support of "the aspirations of the Palestinian people to determine their own future on their own land" is non-binding and dishonest. The US has been working to strip Palestinians of legal means of obtaining their inalienable rights at the negotiating table. It has already promised Israel that it alone can define which territory in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is "Palestinian land". Clinton was honest, however, on one point: he made sure to refer to Palestinian "aspirations", not "rights".
In this context, the US will continue to undermine any attempt to invoke international law and United Nations resolutions embodying legitimate national Palestinian rights. In his remarks to AIPAC, Mr Ross was equally misleading, since he knows that Resolution 242 was not part of the interim period negotiations. It will appear on the negotiating table during final-status talks, but not to be implemented. Instead, any agreement reached will be considered an implementation of 242. In other words, the resolution will be applied to the land that Israel chooses to give back.
In coming months, progress on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks alone could promote Washington's interests. The US will therefore increase the pressure on Arafat to accept Barak's terms, and continue to de-link the Palestinian from the Lebanese and Syrian tracks.
This scenario could lead to the consolidation of Barak's plan to keep most the settlements and pursue his predecessors' strategy of presenting the Palestinians with a fait accompli. Again, collective Palestinian resistance can foil such a scenario. But no "days of rage" will make a difference, except of course in terms of Palestinian lives, without a serious decision to suspend the negotiations. The second most crucial move would be to reconnect the Palestinian with the Syrian and Lebanese tracks -- an unlikely scenario. Attempts by each side to be the first to clinch a deal with Israel, will result in losses for all parties, especially the Palestinians.
*The writer is a US-based Palestinian journalist.
