11 - 17 January 2001
Issue No.516
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 11 - 17 January 2001 Issue No.516 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
No, yes, but...
For much of his stewardship of the Palestinian cause, Yasser Arafat has striven to marry the national aspirations of his people with the imperatives of Israel's regional ambition and the US diplomacy that enables it. As the Clinton presidency draws to a close, and US Special Envoy Dennis Ross is scheduled to embark on one last trip to the region, the absolute impossibility of that marriage is becoming starker by the day.
Slaughter of the innocentsTWO MILLENNIA on, and children are being massacred in Palestine once again. Outrage at the possibility that their rights could be signed away once and for all -- to a government, furthermore, whose death warranty is all but signed, and whose successor will regard any agreements as worthless paper -- has fuelled the Palestinians' determination to fight on. It is difficult to imagine the daily horror of life under occupation, and perhaps a metaphoric portrayal, such as Egyptian artist Gamil Shafik's, conveys more eloquently (if less immediately) the suffering of a caged people.
As far as symbols are concerned, many have been used to illustrate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Historical or legendary figures from David and Goliath to Herod may serve to highlight poignant or ironic parallels; but Israeli colonial occupation is very much a present-day reality.
And aggravated by the contradictory stance of the Palestinian leader himself. Following their meeting in Washington on 2 January, it emerged that Arafat had given qualified approval to Clinton's proposals to serve as "parameters" for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
It is unclear what prompted this decision, given the Palestinian negotiating team's rejection of the US proposals less than 48 hours before. Some say Arafat bowed to intense pressure from the European Union and certain Arab leaders not to reject the proposals outright. Others say he was persuaded by the argument that, however incompatible the proposals are with the terms of international legitimacy and Palestinian national rights, they should be kept as a "baseline" for the incoming administration of George W Bush.
Still others say Arafat was panicked into a conditional acceptance by Clinton's reported threat to marshal a UN Security Council resolution to endorse his "proposals" as the new bases of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It should be remembered that, as dictated to the two sides by Clinton on 23 December, the proposals make no explicit reference to UN resolutions 242 and 338 and invoke UN resolution 194 only to change its meaning.
But whatever the motivation, Arafat's "no, yes, but" caused dismay among the Palestinians, including, say sources, senior members of his negotiating team. "When you say you endorse something in principle it has meaning, even if Arafat doesn't think so," said one Palestinian Authority source. The Palestinians "are against Clinton's proposals and don't care if Arafat has expressed reservations".
Even greater disquiet was aired by the National and Islamic Forces, the cross-factional body that has become the de facto political voice of the Palestinian uprising. In a particularly harsh statement issued on 6 January, the NIF reiterated a "firm rejection of the US proposals" and condemned "any party that tried to pressure the PLO" to do otherwise. Mass Palestinian marches and demonstrations against the proposals followed in Nablus, Ramallah and Tulkarm.
The most ferocious critique, though, has come from within Arafat's own Fatah movement. In an "opinion" published in the Palestinian Al-Hayat Al-Jadida newspaper on 6 January, Fatah listed no less than 44 reasons why Palestinians should oppose the proposals, chief among them their clear "violation of the resolutions of international legitimacy" on which the peace process is based. But the opinion reserved its real barbs for any Palestinian leader or leadership fool enough to even talk about them.
"Accepting the US proposals even with reservations" could be construed "as transforming the basic references" of UN resolutions 242, 338 and 194 "into a non-binding Palestinian demand and releasing Israel and the US from them," said Fatah. Moreover, a conditional acceptance risks moving the gains, sacrifices and unity realised by the Intifada into the destruction of "internal Palestinian-Palestinian conflict and wider Palestinian-Arab conflict".
Given this uproar, it is perhaps not surprising that the PA felt compelled to issue a statement on 8 January explicitly rejecting the US proposals as "unacceptable to the Palestinians on every issue". But it is unclear whether Arafat feels bound by this. He has not yet unequivocally and publicly refused the proposals. He has only called for their "clarification".
But for the Palestinians the proposals are as clear as the sun, and were spelled out again by Clinton in his valedictory speech to the Israeli Policy Forum in New York on 7 January. The US, he repeated, advocates a comprehensive agreement based on settlement blocs in the West Bank, shared Palestinian-Israeli sovereignty in East Jerusalem (including at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount compound) and no right of return for the Palestinian refugees other than to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
When (and if) Ross comes on his last foray to the region, it will almost certainly be to try to consecrate thoese proposals into a new declaration of principles that will set the terms of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in the post-Clinton era. It will be Oslo part three and Camp David part two. That is why Ehud Barak wants the presidential "declaration" and Ross to arrive. That is also why the vast majority of Palestinians want neither.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
