Finally facing facts

Post Sharm El-Sheikh it is the balance of interests and not power that must dictate the shape of any lasting peace, writes Amin Howeidi*

---

On 8 February a one-hour four-way conference was held in Sharm El-Sheikh with the aim of securing a preliminary agreement on the creation of a Palestinian state. It ended with mutual Palestinian-Israeli pledges of a ceasefire and with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon approving the creation of a democratic Palestinian state.

The conference, I believe, marks a turning point. Finally the combatants had to face the facts. Sharon knows that he cannot destroy the resistance and the resistance knows that it cannot destroy Israel. This is one of the reasons the two sides showed up in Sharm El-Sheikh. The overall picture, though, is more complex.

The conflict in Palestine is a test of will. The balance of power may be tilted but strength of will compensates for any modesty of means. Human bombs, booby-trapped cars and primitive weapons can confront tanks, planes, missiles and death squads.

Without the resistance the two sides would not have arrived at this moment of truth. In The New Middle East Shimon Peres notes that the Palestinians are as incapable of throwing Israel into the sea as Israel is of destroying the Palestinians. Addressing the Sharm El-Sheikh gathering, Sharon said: "It is time for a democratic state of Palestine to live alongside Israel. We have to return to the realm of reality, not keep imagining things."

In other words, the illusion of Greater Israel is coming to an end. Mutual destruction is no option.

Combat is only a part of the conflict. Even people who fight need to talk. Without the valiant resistance, the great sacrifices and the honourable blood that was shed the two sides would not have reached this moment of truth. There are those who criticise, denounce and even ridicule the resistance. They are wrong. May God grant his mercy to the many honourable men who took up arms to defend their rights.

The Intifada was strewn with sacrifices. It was an epic with its own leaders, strategy and tactics. Now a new phase is beginning with new -- or perhaps old -- leaders embracing new thoughts. This new phase will involve new tactics though it must not involve a change in the basics of Palestinian strategy. It is to be hoped, however, that it will involve a change of both tactics and strategy on Israel's part.

We need to find the "peace of the brave". The signs so far are good: mutual ceasefire, recognition of the state of Palestine, the opening of crossing points, the release of hundreds of prisoners and an Israeli promise to withdraw from Gaza and five West Bank cities (Bethlehem, Ramallah, Tulkram, Qalqilya, and Jericho).

But the implementation of promises made at Sharm El-Sheikh will not be easy. There are factions on the Arab side that reject the deal and want to destroy it. In Israel Sharon's small majority in the Knesset is far from secure. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and 13 Likud members of the Knesset have, for instance, demanded a referendum on the unilateral disengagement plan.

The ceasefire was reached while both sides were in a state of strategic equilibrium. Both are capable of resuming the fight with whatever means at their disposal. Each side threatens the safety of the other. They are like two scorpions locked inside a box, each capable of stinging the other.

The major problems -- borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements -- have to be urgently addressed so that those who oppose the deal find no excuses to sabotage the dialogue.

The new phase requires an exchange of words and not bullets, and it is an exchange that must continue at the negotiating table and away from it. All the concerned parties must participate. Each party has its own agenda, and the agendas conflict. To resolve this the parties must agree on mutual security. Unilateral security is not enough.

The success of any negotiations depends on careful preparation. Flexibility is essential, though the urge to reach a settlement should not tempt us into forgetting our interests. Negotiations are not an exercise in rhetoric but a search for a formula that gives something to each. Not everyone is going to come out feeling great but the deal has to be fair or it will not hold. The balance of power is bound to shift and the mediators should keep this in mind as they propel the peace wagon forward each time it stalls. Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger, two of the outstanding negotiators of the last century, have spoken of how difficult mediation is. Mediators have to be patient, cool- headed and thick-skinned.

The final must be based on the balance of interests not of power. Reconciliation must serve the interests of current and future generations. What we seek is a realistic and not complete peace. The latter implies the absence of contradictions which is unimaginable. Both parties will have to abandon some demands. Opposition to any deal will be voiced by both sides, and the deal's opponents may resort to violence. What matters, therefore, is to satisfy the majority, not the minority, on both sides.

The battle for peace is complex and can only be won by strong leaders. Without Menachem Begin and Moshe Dayan the Camp David accords would not have been signed. I recall the Rogers Plan, first tabled on 5 August 1970, during the War of Attrition. Vice- President Anwar El-Sadat dismissed it in a public speech, assuming that President Gamal Abdel-Nasser, in Moscow at the time, would reject it.

I sent Abdel-Nasser a letter, in the diplomatic pouch, supporting the plan. At the first cabinet meeting after the president returned from Moscow I said that "the battle for peace requires the skill of a statesman and the wisdom and courage of a soldier". Abdel-Nasser gave me a curt smile. I was defence minister, after having served as chief of general intelligence. Nasser died on 28 September, 1970. At the time we had already had three months of ceasefire and were about to renew the ceasefire for another three months.

The time is ripe. We have a chance that must not be wasted. If things go as hoped a peace deal will be reached, though some will call it a victory and others a defeat.

* The writer is former minister of defence and chief of general intelligence.