16 - 22 May 2002
Issue No.586
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 16 - 22 May 2002 Issue No.586 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
So who is saying no?
Israeli machinations to pull the rug from beneath even the possibility of peace become daily more obvious, writes Ibrahim Nafie
The trilateral summit bringing together Egypt and Syria's presidents and Saudi Arabia's crown prince was convened at a seminal moment in regional affairs. The summit came in the wake of intensive diplomatic activity on the part of key Arab players directed, mainly, at the US.
In recent weeks Egypt's diplomatic offensive has underlined the Palestinians' right of resistance and stressed that unless Israel curtails its attacks against the Palestinian people the entire region will sink into an ever more vicious circle of violence, points President Mubarak stressed in a telephone conversation with Ariel Sharon when he warned the latter against invading Gaza.
The summit followed Crown Prince Abdullah's Washington visit in which he pressed the Arab position that crystallised during the Beirut summit, and answered a need to present a clear Arab position towards an Israeli government intent on expanding its assaults against the Palestinian people.
At this critical juncture Arab leaders faced the very real challenge of endorsing the Palestinian struggle and supporting Palestinian rights while simultaneously elaborating a clear position on acts of violence, particularly the suicide bombings which, Israel repeatedly claims, have made of its aggression a necessary act of defence. They succeeded in meeting the challenge, as is apparent in the final communiqué, comprising a series of interconnected points that together add up to an integrated Arab position.
The communiqué stressed peace remained the Arabs' strategic choice and the position adopted in Beirut provided "the basis of any Arab moves to realise the desired just and comprehensive peace in the context of international legitimacy". It emphasised that a "true desire for peace [involved] a rejection of violence in any form."
The communiqué denounced the random killing of women, children and old people by the Israeli army in its re-invasion of Palestinian land and saluted "the persistence of the Palestinian people and the courage of the Intifada in the face of the occupation forces' destructive military machine." It called for the implementation of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions calling for a fact-finding mission to investigate crimes committed in Jenin and highlighted the importance of "promoting Arab solidarity... to protect Arab security and the greater interests of the Arab nation."
The communiqué further called on "those states that support peace to support Arab rights recognised in international law and exercise pressure on Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied for the sake of achieving a just and comprehensive peace in the region."
The messages of the Sharm El-Sheikh summit can be summarised in the view, expressed by the three leaders, that there is no military solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and that a just and comprehensive peace cannot emerge until Israel withdraws from all Arab lands occupied in June 1967. In a vicious twist in events, no sooner had the summit concluded than the central committee of the Likud Party passed a resolution rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Once again Israel's response to Arab peace initiatives is to escalate regional tensions. After the Beirut summit adopted the Saudi crown prince's initiative calling for total withdrawal in return for full normalisation of relations with Arab states, Israel began its reoccupation of Palestinian lands in the course of which it committed much publicised atrocities and deliberately destroyed the Palestinian Authority's infrastructure.
Likud's decision to oppose the formation of any Palestinian state, given such a history, is no surprise. But realising that such a position is in defiance of all international law, and effectively pulls the carpet from under even the possibility of peace, the US, along with other world powers, was quick to denounce the Likud motion.
Sean McCormack, US National Security Council spokesman announced that "the US supports the idea of establishing a Palestinian state," adding that "President Bush sees Israel and a Palestinian state coexisting in peace."
White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer insisted that "President Bush still thinks the best way to peace is the establishment of a Palestinian state so long as Israeli security is guaranteed." Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that "the existence of a Palestinian state is a necessity... we cannot continue with this people living on occupied land."
The EU rejected the Likud position as quickly. Spain's Foreign Minister Josep Pique (Spain currently holds the chair of the EU) declared that "the establishment of an economically and geographically viable Palestinian state is the only solution to the problem of the Middle East." EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, announced that "the Likud resolution is a breach of the unanimous decision accepted by the US, the EU, Russia and the UN."
Such responses indicate a much clearer understanding of conditions in the region than used to pertain: Israel's habitual denunciation of Arab extremism, of the Arabs' alleged lack of desire for peace, have been exposed for what they are, a fabrication with which to cover its own pursuit of an aggressive war.
Ironically the Likud resolution has reinforced the centrality of Palestinian statehood in international debate. The anger with which it was met by the US and the EU, Israel's closest allies, has served to underline that establishing a Palestinian state is the only way to resolve conflict in the Middle East.
Sharon will make every effort to ensure that such a resolution of the conflict does not happen. Having conceived the plan to invade Gaza as the second phase of his Operation Defensive Shield, he has obviously decided that there is some political mileage to be gained by temporarily posing as a moderate and calling a halt to the operation. The decision not to invade was a response to the enormous pressure applied by the international community.
© 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