 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 31 August - 6 September 2000 Issue No. 497 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 31 August - 6 September 2000 Issue No. 497
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Back to Binyamin?
By Salama Ahmed Salama
President Clinton's brief visit to Cairo, and his rushed meeting with President Mubarak, may add a special importance to the intensive efforts undertaken over the past few weeks to save the peace process. The question, however, is whether Clinton will cobble together a second, more successful summit. Have Barak and Arafat moved far enough on the issues that led to the failure of Camp David II, of which Jerusalem is perhaps the most important?
A transitory and minor rift in Egyptian-American relations followed the US administration's claim that Egypt and the other Arab countries had raised obstacles to the signing of a conclusive agreement at Camp David. Let it be remembered that, in the past two weeks, Egypt has made extraordinary efforts to establish both its concern with the peace process and the validity of certain irrefutable precepts concerning Jerusalem's holy status and the sacred objects it contains, neither of which can be placed under Israeli sovereignty.
It seems that many of the reasons for the disagreement revolve round the question of Jerusalem, which was thought to be the key to the magic world of peace. Many other problems have receded into the background -- the refugees, the borders, the declaration of the Palestinian state -- even despite their complexity. These are the problems of everyday Palestinian life, and they give rise to frequent and repeated clashes with Israel's population; they will remain, like a latent minea capable of exploding at any moment, as long as the suggested solutions are not based on international law, UN Security Council resolutions and previously signed agreements.
The issue of Jerusalem may well supersede, in status, all the others (due to its sensitivity from the religious point of view), and is considered first and foremost an Arab and Muslim issue -- not merely a Palestinian issue that Arafat and his team of negotiators can readily compromise. Indeed, discussions all through the recent negotiations (to which Barak, then his foreign minister, as well as Arafat and other Arab and Muslim parties, contributed) have centred on Egyptian attempts to draft an agreement that would guarantee the Palestinians their right to control Al-Aqsa Mosque, at least, and change the course of the Israeli-American dictates that foiled Camp David.
On the other questions, however, Egypt cannot -- nor does it seek to -- replace the Palestinians, who are ultimately the only judges of what to accept or reject. This is probably what Mubarak emphasised during Clinton's visit, thus avoiding misunderstandings, whether intentional or unintentional.
It was said recently that the Camp David II summit provided a forum through which the Palestinians could present their perspective on various issues to the world without confusion or ambiguity. It has also been said that Barak and his team of negotiators supplied the limits acceptable to Israel in a particularly lucid way, and revealed what the Americans can and cannot do, while conceding that they do not always play the part of objective mediators.
What does all this mean?
If we take into account the results of Camp David II -- as well as the fact that Clinton longs for a peaceful settlement -- and what is being said about a new agreement drafted by Egypt or Norway, we must concede that the horizon presents myriad fragments of the answer, swirling in a powerful wind. Barak himself is in a precarious position, having lost the majority of votes in the Knesset, the affiliation on which he based his policy, and some of his most important consultants, who have recently handed in their resignations. So it is possible that, any minute now, elections will be held in Israel. These could well bring Netanyahu back to power. And what is the point of these efforts if it turns out that Israel never wanted peace after all?
