15 - 21 February 2001
Issue No.521
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 15 - 21 February 2001 Issue No.521 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
In Sharon's wake
The election of Ariel Sharon raises the prospect not only of the collapse of the peace process, but of escalating tensions that could drive the region back into the state of war that had effectively come to an end with the beginning of the Middle East peace process in the early 1990s.
Such anxieties are not unfounded. The personality and past record of the new Israeli leader notwithstanding, the peace process was already in an extremely delicate phase. Predictably, Sharon's statements to date have done little to reassure the Arabs. Indeed, some sectors of the Israeli press have themselves voiced foreboding with one paper lamenting the arrival in power of such a dangerous novice, and another commenting that "Sharon is the best thing to have happened to the Palestinian cause because now the US will be forced to send international forces to the West Bank and Jerusalem."
Still, while there is plenty of cause for worry there is no cause for panic. True, Sharon has shown himself to be headstrong and brutal. Ultimately, however, we are not dealing with an individual, but with a multifaceted political system, and whatever impact Sharon may personally have on the peace process and relations in the Middle East, there are a range of other important factors that determine the decision-making process in Israel. Simultaneously, as the intricate regional and international interplay surrounding the Palestinian-Israeli situation has recently shown the course of events in the Middle East is not determined solely by Tel Aviv. Thus, although Sharon's impetuousness may be difficult to restrain, he will also find it difficult to turn the clock back on the progress made over ten years of intensive Arab-Israeli peace efforts, particularly in view of the general vested interest in safeguarding the stability of the Middle East.
On this issue Egypt has firm and clear positions and it has the resources to back them up. Egypt will not submit to political blackmail or cower before threats of recourse to arms. Nor will it permit the region to revert to a climate that Egypt worked so hard -- and at considerable sacrifice -- to dispel.
Since the end of the 1970s, Egypt has dealt with an array of Israeli prime ministers, many of whom stirred misgivings similar to those surrounding Sharon. Little hope was felt in 1977 when Menachem Begin came to power at the head of a conservative coalition. Yet, in spite of the prevailing pessimism, Sadat and Begin were able to reach a peace agreement that remained stable despite intermittent tension.
Both Yitzhak Shamir and Binyamin Netanyahu were hard line Likud leaders who allied themselves with ultra-right religious forces. Yet, in spite of their intransigence, foot-dragging and obstructiveness, deal with them we did.
Egypt has also worked with Israeli prime ministers who were more earnestly committed to peace. The Israeli people, above all, are aware of the mutual goodwill we were able to achieve with Labour leaders Rabin and Peres because of a shared desire to reach a fair and durable settlement, whatever differences might have existed.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was an anomaly. It was with considerable relief that Egypt and other Arab countries welcomed him as Netanyahu's successor, seeing in him the hope to revive the peace process in the spirit of his two Labour predecessors. Encouraged by these hopes, Egypt fully backed the intensive contacts that made it possible for the Palestinians and Israelis to directly address final status issues. However, after all the progress that was made, the final months of Barak's rule saw an astounding volte face when his government unleashed the most atrocious violence against the Palestinian people, eventually forcing Egypt to withdraw its ambassador from Tel Aviv in protest.
Regardless of who happens to be Israel's prime minister, Egypt's position has been consistent. In its dedication to advancing the cause of peace, it has encouraged every serious efforts to promote a just and lasting settlement. When it encountered Israeli governments equally committed to this goal its task was easier. When it encountered resistance it adapted to the circumstances in the most responsible manner possible.
Now, the Middle East stands at another crossroads. Because of everything we know Sharon stands for, not only the peace process, but the stability of the entire Middle East stands in the balance. Will Sharon live up to his reputation as the Israeli Milosovic and destroy all prospects for peace for the foreseeable future? This scenario appears unlikely in view of factors inside Israel and abroad that will work to curb his more impetuous tendencies. Also, Sharon has stated that what he seeks at present is a "non-aggression pact" with the Palestinians, which suggests that although the new Israeli leader may not want peace, he does not want military tensions to spiral out of control.
Or will Sharon, like Netanyahu before him, seek to reopen negotiations over issues that have been agreed upon, effectively bringing ten years of effort back to square one? So far, this prospect appears the most likely. Within days of Sharon's election, the new US administration announced that it would not abide by Clinton's proposals for a framework solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, a position that Sharon greeted enthusiastically on the grounds that it would free him from "Barak's concessions."
Egypt, too, welcomes the US position, but for different reasons. Above all, it is Egypt's hope that this will open the door to a more balanced approach, but one, it should be stressed, that honours the understandings that were reached in the recent Taba summit. Unfortunately, Egypt fears that Sharon may be aiming to undermine the very underpinnings of the Madrid formula, which was based on the principle of land for peace. To go in this direction is to take a leap into the void. As senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Ereikat remarked, while Sharon's position is not necessarily a recipe for war, it will certainly put an end to any hope of reaching an agreement over the core issues, with all the ramifications for regional stability this entails.
© 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 |
Recommend this page