Issue No. 592
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
27 June - 3 July 2002 Issue No. 592 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
The way backwards
In response to Ariel Sharon's article in the New York Times Abdel-Raouf El-Reedy* sent the following reply. It was not published
Ariel Sharon's op ed column (New York Times, 5 June) does not, as he claims, outline a way forward in the Middle East. It is a prescription for disaster, for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
The one good thing about that piece is that it has revealed, beyond any doubt, Sharon's purpose, which is to justify the annexation of part or even the whole of the West Bank. And in order to achieve this he has tried to rewrite both history and the law. The Israeli prime minister claimed that the Arabs started the June 1967 War by attacking Israel. The fact, known to every historian and accessible in every history book, is that the first shot was fired by Israel -- a massive Israeli air attack against Egyptian air bases and airports. Israel started the war.
Indeed, on 5 June a high level delegation, headed by Zakaria Mohieddin, Egypt's vice president, was due to travel to Washington to meet President Johnson to negotiate a way out of the crisis. The delegation was turned back in the early hours of that fateful day. Cairo Airport had been effectively destroyed by Israel's attack. No matter how many years pass these remain the facts of history.
As for the law: Sharon claims that Security Council Resolution 242 allows Israel to expand its territory beyond the lines that existed prior to its attack. This is a distortion of Resolution 242, which explicitly stipulates that "acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" under the UN Charter. Nothing in the resolution supports Sharon's contention that Israel is not expected to withdraw from all the territories occupied in that war.
Secure and recognised borders will come out of concluding peace agreements with neighbours, as has been the case with the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Since its conclusion in 1979, both Egypt and Israel have enjoyed peace and security on both sides of the border. The same can be said about the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty since its conclusion in 1994. So would be the case with an Israeli- Palestinian peace treaty. The two states would live side by side and enjoy the fruits of peace and cooperation instead of the present state of ongoing confiscations of Palestinian land, violent Israeli incursions and targeted assassinations on one hand and Palestinian suicide bombings on the other.
When such a peace treaty is signed, in accord with the vision outlined by President George W Bush in his speech this past April, Israel will occupy 78 per cent of historic Palestine. The Palestinian state will occupy the rest, a mere 22 per cent of what was Palestine up until 1948. It is not a bad deal for Israel, particularly when we consider that in return the entire Arab world will normalise its relations with Israel in accordance with the Saudi initiative endorsed unanimously by the Arab Summit last March in Beirut. This is the way forward in the Middle East.
Trying to upset the balance encapsulated in Security Council Resolution 242 and in all the peace negotiations that followed -- namely the exchange of land for peace (with "peace" defined, not narrowly, but according to long held Israeli aspirations for normalisation) -- will only lead to more bloodshed on both sides.
Israeli-Palestinian accommodation will certainly not be to the liking of the extremists and ideologues on both sides. Fortunately, they remain a minority. The majority of Israelis and Palestinians aspire to live in peace, in two states side by side, free from military occupation and the dangers of terrorism, willing to let bygones be bygones for the sake of the future. As President Bush has stated, enough is enough.
Now that President Bush is concluding his consultations with both the president of Egypt and the prime minister of Israel, he should outline his vision based on the existing international consensus, which is in turn based on Security Council Resolution 242, and come up with a plan and a timetable to implement his vision. This is a role cut out for the US and the US alone. Such a deal will restore the Middle East and help its peoples, Israelis and Arabs, to fulfill their national aspirations and deepest longings for peace, security and cooperation. It will also eradicate the major sources of resentment and hopelessness that are the breeding ground for terrorism. This is the real way forward -- a unique opportunity that President Bush has in his hands that could bring peace to the Middle East and strike a decisive blow in the war against terrorism.
* The writer is the former Egyptian ambassador to the United States.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
