 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 24 - 30 August 2000 Issue No. 496 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 24 - 30 August 2000 Issue No. 496
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Reality hits home
By Ibrahim Nafie
The idea of another Camp David summit seems to be in the air -- its purpose to pursue the same ends last July's summit patently failed to achieve. Though the US administration has taken no firm decision to convene a new summit, and neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are prepared for this eventuality, sometimes such ideas acquire a momentum of their own. Pressures build up, propitious forecasts are made and, because neither side wants to appear as though it is obstructing the peace process, they find themselves somehow propelled to their seats at an ill-prepared negotiating table.
It is clear, though, that we cannot afford the same mistakes twice. If the region absorbed the ramifications of an aborted Camp David once, it may not be able to do so a second time. Therefore, rather than rushing ahead with the same old agendas, it seems wiser to adopt a fresh approach. I am not suggesting that all details be agreed upon before a next summit -- that would be putting the cart before the horse. But there must be at least some "conformity" over fundamental principles if a satisfactory conclusion is to emerge.
True, time is a compelling factor. Barak, facing enormous domestic pressures, seems more disposed to seek an agreement than any of his predecessors. Presidential candidates in the US, in the run up to elections, are vying desperately to win the Jewish vote, a factor likely to hamper the next US administration in handling the Middle East problem with even a modicum of impartiality. For the Palestinians, time is not so much a matter of individuals in power or political orientations as it is of realities on the ground.
Time might favour haste but a new summit must first be furnished with the basic ingredients for success. What needs to be done by all sides is clear. They must continue making every effort towards reconciling differences between the Palestinians and Israelis over fundamental issues, differences that led to the collapse of the previous talks. It will take a lot of "creative thinking" to bridge the gaps in the official positions, a lot of groundwork to prepare a constructive negotiating climate and a lot of attention to specifics in order to prevent unforeseen developments from dragging the process into a mire. It therefore seems appropriate at this juncture to remind all parties concerned of some self-evident truths.
Firstly, to base a new summit on the same pact or "formula" as the previous one will not yield results. While it is possible to build on the progress that was made in some areas, what is desperately needed is some profound rethinking of starting positions, particularly with regards to Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees. These positions, moreover, must be much more crystallised than the vague unofficial conceptions and promises that preceded the summit last July.
There is no doubt that any new summit must be the "last" as far as negotiating a framework agreement is concerned. For such an agreement to be viable negotiators should focus on the ultimate goal, which is to end the conflict between the two sides. Past experience on this negotiating track has demonstrated that putting agreed provisions into effect has always given rise to difficulties. It would be wiser, therefore, for negotiators to work towards a framework agreement that minimises the number of protocols to be negotiated later.
Secondly, flexibility is a two-way street. In the wake of Camp David the charge of inflexibility was leveled exclusively at the Palestinians. Many Israeli officials have loudly exonerated themselves of all fault, proclaiming that "the ball is in the Palestinian court," as though now it is entirely up to the Palestinians to offer concessions.
This attitude is counterproductive. It is worth recalling how much the Palestinians have given already, what their limitations are and the fact that they have international legitimacy on their side. But even more germane is the observation of senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: "If this peace process fails, I don't think people will care much who is responsible. The consequences will be much more dire than people saying, 'I blame the Israelis or the Palestinians.'"
Thirdly, any new formula requires major rethinking with regards to the question of Jerusalem. There can be no suggestion of deferring a solution on this issue -- the Arab and Islamic worlds would only construe from this that a "secret deal" had been struck. While the Israeli conception for Jerusalem forwarded in Camp David reflected a departure from the hard line Israeli position -- that the city, as Israel's "eternal, undivided capital" could never be the subject of negotiation -- Isreali proposals remained far from acceptable. We hope that the Arab and Islamic reactions to this Israeli proposal have driven home the fact that Jerusalem is the one issue that cannot be bartered over piecemeal.
All parties directly involved in the Middle East peace process were harmed by what happened in Camp David. That alone should be sobering enough for all to wish to avoid a repeat of the experience.
All possible attention must be given to thorough and methodical preparation, with due consideration given to the time factor. Many now show a better understanding of the complexity of the issues, a greater willingness to deal with them effectively and a more ardent desire to reach a solution on this track, if only because no one wants to see the alternative. This attitude together with the exercise of realpolitik should furnish a sufficiently sturdy foundation for a summit that can produce lasting solutions rather than a hastily patched together agreement that will only create more problems.
