Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 26 Oct. - 1 Nov. 2000 Issue No. 505
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875

	Egypt Palestine International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters

Variations on a theme

By Sherine Bahaa

Tunisian President Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali, in his opening speech to the Cairo summit, called for a reassessment of the resolution adopted by the Arab summit which had convened in June 1996. "While referring to the Arab position as stated by the 1996 Cairo Summit in its final communiqué, which emphasised the Arab states' commitment to peace as a strategic choice, we must reaffirm that Israel's persistence in undermining the peace process and reneging on international laws and its own unilateral commitments all call for a reexamination of each and every step undertaken towards normalisation."

At the 1996 Arab summit which convened after the formation of the right-wing Likud government under Benjamin Netanyahu, Arab leaders warned Israel that they would adjust the pace of normalising relations "according to progress in the peace process."

At this week's summit, they reiterated that the peace negotiations, in the form in which they have been conducted since the Oslo agreement in 1993, are no longer valid.

Said Kamal, assistant secretary-general of the Arab League, described the 1996 resolutions as a "legal, political framework which contains a warning against the negative repercussions which a lapse in the peace process would inflict on Israel -- before the Arabs."

According to Kamal, the 1996 summit was only three years after Oslo, and things had been proceeding smoothly. But "from 1996 to 1999, few of the agreements signed were implemented. The Syrian Israeli peace track was frozen. The Lebanese resistance was escalating. Resentment reached its peak in the Qana massacre [during Israel's 1996 Grapes of Wrath onslaught on Lebanon. The US shifted from co-sponsor of the peace process to the position of strategic ally to Israel."

According to some observers, this month's "Aqsa summit" is partially a reflection of the shortcomings of the 1996 summit. "If resolutions adopted in 1996 had been implemented, things would not have deteriorated to this extent," said Gamil Mattar, former assistant secretary-general of the Arab League. "Not only this, but in 1996 there was less anger."

Palestinian youth in one of their daily confrontations against Israeli occupation troops, vowing not to stop their Intifada photo: Thomas Hartwell

Scenes of brutal murder of civilians, including children, and of mothers kissing their martyred sons before their burial have provoked demonstrations everywhere in the Arab world. Hours after the summit concluded, Tunis and Morocco closed their representative offices in Israel and the Israeli offices in their own respective capitals. Yemen, Libya and Iraq have gone so far as to call for Jihad. "It is clear that there is a gap widening between most of the Arab regimes and their peoples, which is the culmination of a long series of disappointments and frustrations," Mattar commented.

Signed agreements are not implemented, and there are continuous attempts to blackmail the Arabs. First, late Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad returned from Geneva last March empty handed, then Arafat spent around two weeks in Camp David under intense pressure to cave in to Israeli and the US demands. When Arafat refused to bow to US pressure, he was branded as being against the peace process. "If the resolution of the 1996 had been implemented, Israel would not have been so intransigent. The US administration would have realised that the Arabs are serious in their threats," Mattar asserted.

There was a minor, if significant shift, in the Arab position on the peace process in this week's summit, compared to that adopted in 1996. Then, the Arab leaders asserted that peace with Israel was their sole strategic choice. This time around, they reasserted their support for the choice of peace but pointed out that it was not the only one open for them.

Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad announced that "other options should be put in mind. Peace does not mean giving up our rights but rather defending them. Peace needs force and deterrence. The worst thing is peace of weakness or war of weakness."

Financial aid to the Palestinians was perhaps what most distinguished this week's summit from the one before it. Rather than merely urging financial aid to the Palestinians, the summit, in response to a Saudi initiative, established two funds worth a total of $1 billion for the support of both the Intifada and the defence of Al-Aqsa. On the other hand, a gradually escalating policy of boycott of Israel seems to have been initiated. According to Kamal, Israelis and Arabs used to interact freely, "but from now on the presence of Israel in any capacity will be exposed to thorough examination."

---

Related stories:
Intifada in focus
States of emergency
Producing the body (count)
Tempered anger at the summit
Composing the consensus
The electronic Intifada
Horror in your sitting room
Variations on a theme
The big freeze
Solidarity days
'A valid fear'
Meet the press
The earth speaks Arabic
Also see Focus on Intifada 19 - 25 October 2000

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

	weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg