10 - 16 May 2001
Issue No.533
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 10 - 16 May 2001 Issue No.533 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Mix and match
Will the Mitchell report serve to support the Egyptian-Jordanian initiative, or is it another initiative altogether? Tarek Atia investigates
It was clear last week that in terms of plans to end the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation and revive negotiations, in the words of EU top diplomat Javier Solana, there was only one document on the table.
This week, the Egyptian-Jordanian initiative was joined by the Mitchell report, the preliminary findings of the commission formed by last October's Sharm Al-Sheikh summit to investigate the cause of violence in the Palestinian territories and look for ways to end it.
How similar are the two documents, and do they represent alternatives for the parties to choose from? Or are they more, in the words of Dutch Foreign Minister Jozias van Aartsen, something to put together, as a basis to "try and find openings for the next stage."
The crux of both documents, argues one Egyptian diplomat, is that they both deal with the current crisis in a comprehensive manner, not just as a security issue. Both take as their premise that the Al-Aqsa Intifada is the result of compounded frustration. "It's not an alternative," the source says of the so-called Mitchell report, "because [the report's] recommendations, at least in spirit and approach, are similar" to the Egyptian-Jordanian plan.
Both the initiative and the report come down hard on the issue of Israeli settlements. Israel, the commission report states in no uncertain terms, "should freeze all settlement activity, including the 'natural growth' of existing settlements."
On one of the other essential points of friction, the commission is also clear: "The IDF [Israeli army] should consider withdrawing to positions held before 28 September 2000." The Egyptian-Jordanian initiative makes such a withdrawal a precursor to anything else.
The differences between the two reports relate to issues of timing and final status. While the Egyptian-Jordanian initiative is based on principles of "simultaneity", the Mitchell report calls for a "meaningful cooling off period" after a cease-fire. The diplomatic source explains that the importance of simultaneity lies in the core reason for the Intifada continuation. "If the Palestinians find there are serious steps being taken by the Israelis [to calm down the situation], they'll have no reason to act. But if they wake up and find Israeli tanks outside their window they have no choice but to react."
The concept of "simultaneity" means it is important for both sides to move forward with the negotiations at the same time rather than wait and see whether a cease-fire lasts for some specified amount of time. Perhaps this is why the Egyptian offer also mandates a one-year time-frame for concluding final status negotiations, rather than leaving things vague, like the Mitchell report's non-time-specific request for a "return to serious negotiations."
The question now, however, seems to have more to do with whether anyone can convince the Israelis to consider the choices before them. Instead of presenting a clear response to either proposal, however, all Israel has done, notes Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa, has been to say something, then do the opposite. Last week's about-turn by Moussa's Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres regarding a possible cease-fire was a classic example of this behaviour.
This week, despite the fact that both Peres and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had kind words to say about parts of both the Mitchell report and the Egyptian-Jordanian initiative, Sharon announced that he was asking for 1.5 billion shekels in additional funds for expanding settlements. The request came just one day after the Mitchell commission's harsh condemnation of settlements was made public.
Moussa described Sharon's request as "greedy ... an incorrect reading of the situation, and yet another provocation against not only Palestinian public opinion, but Arab public opinion as a whole." Contradictions such as these, the foreign minister said, "require us to look at things with deep scepticism."
© 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