Issue No.589
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
6 - 12 June 2002 Issue No.589 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Dispensing with peace
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed points to the danger of Sharon's assumption that peace can be dispensed with
Tomorrow's meeting between presidents Mubarak and Bush comes at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is quietly bringing about a fundamental change in the geographical map of the region. The sweeping incursions to which many cities in the West Bank were subjected in March and April this year were not, as Israel claimed, temporary punitive measures aimed at destroying "terrorist infrastructures", but a systematic and deliberate attempt to destroy one of the structural underpinnings of the Oslo accords, the tacit quid pro quo of withdrawal-for-security, in what appears to be the first step towards abandoning the accords altogether and replacing the peace process with a military solution to the Palestinian problem.
The Oslo accords were based on the understanding that as Israel pulls out of given Palestinian territories the newly established Palestinian Authority would guarantee Israel's security within these territories. As security is consolidated, further pullouts would follow, creating a climate of mutual confidence that would enable the two sides to gradually reach agreements on the various aspects of the conflict.
But the failure of the negotiations conducted under former US President Clinton's sponsorship in Camp David, followed by talks in Taba and elsewhere until the very last day of Clinton's mandate, was seen by the anti-peace camps on both sides of the confrontation line as vindicating their hard-line approach and provided Sharon with the opportunity not only to dismiss the ideas put forward in these negotiations, but also to renege on Israel's commitments as stipulated in the Oslo accords, which were signed with great fanfare on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993.
The argument used to justify the Israeli onslaught on PA-controlled towns and cities was that the Palestinian Authority could no longer be trusted to fight terrorism, and that therefore the Israeli military had to take over the job. It was an argument that served Sharon well in the context of the anti-terrorist hysteria gripping the world, allowing him to re-occupy many West Bank cities without encountering any significant international opposition.
But the replacement of the Palestinian Authority by the Israeli military as the guarantor of Israel's security deprives the peace process of its raison d'être and allows Sharon to act on his theory that Arafat is no better than Bin Laden and should be removed.
Sharon has claimed victory in his war against terror, justifying the carnage rained by his military machine on defenceless Palestinian civilians as necessary to uproot terrorism and deal a decisive blow to potential suicide bombers. But given that his repressive measures have not put an end to suicide bombings, his claim of victory rings somewhat hollow. This was a fact Sharon could not ignore without tacitly conceding that his campaign in the West Bank had failed. He thus found himself confronted with the need to step up military operations with the traits of outright war. Here Sharon's design is bound to collide with the Bush Administration's outlook to the situation. Can this be taken advantage of to call Sharon back to reason?
In the days preceding Mubarak's trip to Washington the president received US Assistant Secretary of State William Burns. At the press conference which followed the meeting Burns declared that the US is moving on three fronts, first that of establishing a Palestinian state side by side with Israel; second, that of building Palestinian institutions, and, third, that of creating an efficient security apparatus. As the backbone of the Palestinian entity, Bush gives particular importance to Palestinian security arrangements. He has instructed CIA Chief George Tenet to return to the Middle East for that purpose.
But Sharon opposes these measures. He believes Washington should not intervene at all to reform the Palestinian Authority as long as Arafat is in power. Reforming the Palestinian security apparatus can only consolidate the Palestinian entity and complicate Sharon's attempts to liquidate it. That probably explains why Arafat has agreed to the reforms, despite the threat they could eventually pose to his authority.
When Sharon first launched his military offensive in the West Bank he described it as a temporary security measure undertaken for the purpose of arresting terrorists whose names were listed in the files of the Israeli security organs, and that Israel would pull its troops out once the task was accomplished. But although troops have pulled back from a number of areas, the pullbacks were far from final. Bethlehem, Tulkarm, Qalqilya and Nablus were re-occupied once again, and house-to-house searches conducted over and over. It would appear that the alternative to temporary re-occupation is not complete withdrawal but withdrawals interspaced with periods of re-occupation. The American administration has expressed disapproval of this line of conduct. But Sharon has whispered in private to close associates that Bush is no longer pressing him to put an end to the incursions and that he is firmly opposed only to a total and permanent Israeli re- occupation.
We are thus moving in a vicious circle. The continuing suicide bombings have elevated Israeli retaliations to unprecedented heights, while Israeli repression has, in the words of a senior Israeli officer, limited the ability of the Palestinians to undertake suicide operations but increased their resolve. Thus violence is bringing about more violence, fuelling mutual hatred and drastically diminishing any chance for peace. The only way out of the vicious circle is for Washington to take decisive measures to de- escalate matters and prevent the situation from sliding further into all-out war, if not into a conventional war, then into some new form of guerrilla warfare that can widely destabilise the region at a time America is giving top priority to the war against global terrorism.
Another topic that Burns brought up during his meeting with President Mubarak was the reconstruction of Palestinian institutions in preparation for the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is a ticklish issue at a time when Sharon's insistence that Arafat be removed is not met by a more forceful counterstand by the Bush Administration.
Israeli sources have revealed that the American administration is preparing lists of Palestinian personalities eligible to occupy key positions in the new Palestinian institutions. There is no doubt that the intervention of a foreign party in reorganising the Palestinian Authority is bound to affect Arafat's prerogatives as elected Palestinian president and create a parallel chain of command that could seriously jeopardise Palestinian cohesion and stability.
The Palestinian movement has suffered from unprecedented blows throughout the last two months and will not be able to move out of the quagmire without a real, and not only cosmetic, reform which now comes up against overwhelming difficulties. Not only is practically everybody in the Palestinian movement dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, but rifts in the ranks of the Palestinian security forces are reaching a critical point, particularly between the Gaza security chief, Mohamed Dahlan, and his West Bank counterpart Gabril Al-Ragoub.
Then there is the widespread devastation of the West Bank, which is making life hell for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The US and the EU have pledged the sum of $1.2 billion for Palestinian reconstruction. However, the sum will only be paid if Arafat meets the donors' conditions, foremost among which is the appointment of a Palestinian personality of good repute as minister of finance with a mandate to combat corruption and set up a special fund in which donations will be deposited and from which drawings will be fully accounted. Already problems are arising because the priorities are different for the donor parties on the one hand and the various Palestinian parties, including those calling for all out-reform, on the other.
These tremendous challenges cannot be assumed by the Palestinians alone. On the other hand, they should not be left to external parties, even the US, without the Palestinians having a final say. Can Egypt help?
What is certain is that exposing the Palestinian Authority to a violent shake-up at a time Sharon is showing no readiness to commit himself to a peaceful settlement and is continuing to exercise the military option makes it all the more imperative for Cairo to convince President Bush that he cannot place his bets on Sharon as a "man of peace" while Arafat is treated as part of the "axis of evil". Seeking a more balanced settlement is not only crucial for the Palestinian problem, but also for the vital interest of both the United States and Egypt.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
