 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 January 2000 Issue No. 464 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 January 2000 Issue No. 464
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Heritage Special Books Profile Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Climbing down -- again
By Graham UsherAfter a delay of nearly two months, Israel last week implemented the second phase of the second West Bank redeployment as set down in the "revised" Wye agreement of last September. If the ceremonies accompanying the five per cent transfer of territory were low-key, this was not simply due to the winter rains. It was also because the disconnected jumble of villages, enclaves and the "nature reserve" traced to the square metre the map Ehud Barak had presented -- and the Palestinian Authority had refused -- on 15 November.
Not that "climb-down" was a phrase used by PA officials to explain why they now acceded to a deal they had previously rejected. On the contrary, "both sides were satisfied" with the redeployment because "it reflected the principles of partnership and joint decision making", the PA's head of the interim negotiations, Saeb Erekat, told Voice of Palestine Radio on 6 January. Other PA officials went even more enthusiastic. They leaked to every media outlet they could find that conceding to Israel's terms for the second phase was merely a trade-off for the "quality" lands the Palestinians would receive in the 6.1 per cent third phase redeployment scheduled for 20 January, including (according to some) full PA control of villages like Abu Dis, Azzariyya and Al-Ram on the eastern edge of Jerusalem.
This is almost certainly wishful thinking. On 10 January, Israel's Internal Security Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, told Israel Radio that while Palestinian "neighbourhoods and villages bordering Jerusalem may be handed over to the PA, the matter will only be discussed within the framework for the final status talks [scheduled to completed by mid- February] and not before that".
Rather, the Palestinian retreat on the second phase maps was more likely a product of failure and hope. Since it was made clear by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright last month that she would not intervene on Arafat's behalf to get a more generous territorial dispensation from Barak, the Palestinian leader needed an exit from the "crisis" he had manufactured over the second phase. This is because he wants his meeting with President Bill Clinton in Washington on 20 January to be devoted mainly to the content of the mid-February Framework Agreement. In particular, says PLO negotiator, Nabil Shaath, who is expected to accompany Arafat on the trip, the Palestinians will be seeking "American support for Palestinian just rights" on the framework agreement's formulations regarding Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, borders and water. In such circumstances, the last thing Arafat would want on the agenda is an unresolved tussle over five per cent of the West Bank.
Palestinians performing Eid Al-Fitr prayers at Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem earlier this week
(photo: AP)
The other factor that prompted Arafat to ditch his objections to the second phase redeployment was the "commitments" he reportedly received from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at their meeting in Ramallah on 22 December. The first was a pledge that Israel would not try to "integrate" the second West Bank redeployment with the third, now due to happen after the Framework Agreement in February. The second was that Israel would "lend an ear" to Palestinian requests regarding the territory to be transferred in the third phase of the second redeployment on condition that Israel alone would eventually decide. To this end, a meeting has been set for 13 January between Erekat and chief Israeli negotiator on both the interim and final status issues, Oded Eran.
Aside from the villages next to Jerusalem, there is one particular territory on which Arafat is keen to have at least a toehold ahead of any Framework Agreement -- and that is the Jordan Valley. And the argument he has reportedly invoked -- with both his American and Israeli interlocutors -- is that without eventual Palestinian sovereignty over the Valley, a future Palestinian state will not be able to absorb even a limited number of Palestinian refugees. It is an argument that is increasingly gaining a hearing among certain Israeli quarters, even if the emerging Palestinian and Israeli consensus is that the refugee issue per se will almost certainly be deferred in any final status deal. This is because all are aware there are at least two refugee communities whose fate cannot be indefinitely postponed -- the nearly 800,000 refugees squeezed in to the tiny Gaza Strip and the 200,000 or so in Lebanon.
Coincidentally or otherwise, three recent events have served to strengthen Arafat's demand for both territorial depth and contiguity for the emerging Palestinian entity. The first has been the flow of around 20,000 Palestinians from Gaza who have travelled the safe passage since it was opened in October to the West Bank in search of work and, for some at least, a new home. The second has been the rise in tensions between the Lebanese authorities and Arafat's Fatah movement in the camps in south Lebanon. And the third are reports, aired in both the Palestinian and Israeli press in the last week, that Israel is engaged in quiet negotiations with Lebanon and the PA to "repatriate" nearly 2,000 Fatah "fighters" from the camps in Lebanon to the self rule areas.
The reports have yet to be officially confirmed or denied, but they are likely to be on the table in Washington when Arafat makes the case that the larger the territory he obtains from Israel the greater will be the stability in both the occupied territories and the region.
