 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 24 Feb. - 1 March 2000 Issue No. 470 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 24 Feb. - 1 March 2000 Issue No. 470
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Focus Heritage Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Opportunity never rings twice
By Ahmed Abdel-Halim *The climate is more propitious than ever before for the rapid resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict -- if intentions are honourable. Despite the current lull, negotiations are taking place between Israel and two Arab parties (Syria and Palestine) and, once the problem of the Golan Heights has been settled, Lebanon will join in. Yet however promising these opportunities may seem, Israel is playing a dangerous game of manipulation.
After Israeli negotiators pledged that they would not link the various negotiating tracks or play them off against one another, the cabinet postponed troop withdrawal from the West Bank (as stipulated by the Sharm Al-Sheikh agreement), ostensibly while awaiting the results of the meeting between Arafat and Clinton, but actually to await the resumption of talks on the Syrian-Israeli track. Now the meeting has taken place, but there is no sign from Israel that it will honour its obligations. Israel, by deferring the fulfillment of its contractual obligations toward the Palestinians, sought to engender tension with the Syrians. The significance of the move was not lost on Arafat, who used the US-sponsored talks between Al-Sharaa and Barak to remind all parties not to ignore the Palestinian problem, which constitutes the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Palestinians, like the Syrians, have every right to consider that the Israeli tactics augur only evil. Given Israeli-US relations, they also have every right to regard the US's role as mediator with suspicion. The Arabs, in fact, would do well to prepare themselves for the worst.
The present analysis of the problems that lie ahead for the Arabs will focus on the Syrian-Israeli negotiations that took place in Washington under the direct supervision of the US president, and which have now stopped because of Israeli intransigence. Top of the long list of issues before the Syrian and Israeli negotiators are: the delineation of the final borders, security arrangements, access to water and bilateral relations.
Syria demands that the borders be located where they were before 4 June 1967. Israel, on the other hand, claims that the borders should be those that separated Palestine from Syria at the time of the British Mandate. Israel argues that it used Mandate borders as the basis for its agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and that it sees no reason why it should apply a different standard in its negotiations with Syria. Syria counters, first, that the border issues in its case are unique and second, that Israel has no legitimate historical right to demand a return to borders that predated its existence.
Although the average distance between the two sets of borders is only a few metres, the difference is great in terms of strategic concerns. Israel's definition would give it access to Jabal Al-Sheikh and other vantage points in the area. Above all, it would deprive Syria of access to Lake Tiberius and other important sources of water in the border region. The water issue is so closely linked to all other issues on the negotiating table that one can easily understand why the Israeli and Syrian positions over negotiating priorities have diverged so sharply in Washington, with Israel demanding that water, security and normalisation be settled first and Syria insisting that Israeli withdrawal from the Golan and the definition of the boundaries take priority.
The Clinton initiative to resolve this impasse predictably sought to manipulate the border issue in Israel's favour. The working paper the US president presented to the Syrian and Israeli delegations called for the establishment of peace and security within "recognised borders". Because the loose wording tacitly supported Israeli intentions of redrawing the boundaries, Syria insisted that the formula be reworded to refer to designated borders. The Syrian amendment is reminiscent of the formulation which, in the wake of the Gulf War, served to define the task of a UN commission created by a Security Council resolution with the US's approval. The fact that the Clinton administration itself did not consider this formula in the case of the Syrian-Israeli border question is yet another instance of the double standards obvious in US foreign policy since the US assumed sole responsibility for determining the world's fate.
Another US approach to the negotiations also favours the Israeli point of view. The US administration has adopted the skewed logic advocated by pro-Israeli circles, arguing that since the Syrian government, unlike the Israeli government, is not subject to democratic processes, it can therefore afford to be more "flexible". The implication, of course, is that Syria can sign any agreement, no matter how prejudicial its substance, because it is not accountable to domestic public opinion. Apart from the absurdity of the proposition, the logic is inherently spurious. Syria, whatever its system of government, should not be forced to forego its rightful demands, particularly after having held out for so long.
This idea, voiced by the US State Department spokesman, also gives us reason to suspect that the US will toe the Israeli line on a number of other issues. Such issues include removing Israeli settlements from the Golan, solving the problem of Palestinian refugees, making the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, defining the parties entitled to operate the early warning station on Jabal Al-Sheikh, and the particularly sensitive question of the final status of Jerusalem, which is of concern to all the Arabs.
The US working paper presented to the negotiators also held that Israel should obtain guarantees for a certain quota and quality of water from Syria. Syria, backed by international law, maintains that this issue should be based on UN conventions governing the use of international waterways for non-navigational purposes. Several questions remain. In the event of drought, would Syria be obliged to continue to furnish the same quantity of water to Israel as stipulated in their agreement? Would the US exert the same pressure on Turkey, for instance, in order to ensure that Syria and Iraq receive equitable quotas of water from the Euphrates?
The US has also adopted the Israeli line with regard to security arrangements and peaceful relations. Once again, US partiality is most shortsighted. A US-sponsored settlement based on the current balance of power will not bring peace; rather, in the most optimistic of scenarios, it will result in an armed truce, the conditions of which will be subject to the changing equations of regional and international power. Such a warped settlement is certainly not conducive to Israel's long-term peace and security, which ultimately can be guaranteed only through its natural assimilation into the region. This assimilation, in turn, cannot take place if comprehensive economic and cultural cooperative relations with the other countries of the region are not established.
Israel has a golden opportunity to engage in peaceful relations with new generations of Arabs who did not experience the Zionist occupation of Palestinian land in the 1940s, the Tripartite Aggression of 1956 or the Israeli invasion of its Arab neighbours in 1967. But it risks forfeiting this opportunity by procrastinating, counting on the illusion of permanent American backing and opting for short-term material gains at the expense of long-term security. The Arabs, at least for now, are naturally suspicious of Israeli policy and doubt that current negotiations between Syria and Israel will have any positive results. The disparities are too great between what Israeli officials said yesterday and what they are saying today, the agreements that were signed and the provisions that have been implemented, declared principles and actual practice. Israel still rejects the principle of a just and equitable peace that will bring stability to the entire region. It has yet to accept President Mubarak's initiative to rid the region of weapons of mass destruction; it continues to ignore the Arabs' legitimate rights and the Palestinian refugees' need to return to their homes. Moreover, Israel, which presents itself to the world as an oasis of democracy, continues to function according to the duality inherent in its nature, which ensures that only one segment of the population -- the Jewish segment, and even that to varying degrees -- enjoys full civil rights and liberties. For now at least, Israel, which insists on placing its national security above all other considerations, appears determined to scuttle any prospects of true security for itself or the region as a whole. In this context, the bombing of Lebanon may simply be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
* The writer is deputy director of the National Centre for Middle East Studies.
