Israel has for decades called upon the Arabs to launch peace initiatives, only to scuttle them, writes Emad Gad The debate over the disengagement plan -- the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the dismantling of four settlements in the northern West Bank -- continued to occupy the Israeli media this week. Set to begin implementation in mid- July, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently postponed the plan to mid-August, until the end of the traditional period of Jewish mourning over the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Even as the Israeli media continued to closely follow daily events in the occupied Palestinian territories, there was also focus on the withdrawal plan and its possible consequences. Some in the media began asking what would happen after the withdrawal from Gaza. How will the PA behave, and what will the Israeli government do? Many also question the Israeli stance towards PA President Mahmoud Abbas. In the midst of such questions, it became apparent that the Israeli media is split in its view of Abu Mazen. One camp sees him as a man who represents a real partner for peace, and they issued an appeal to take advantage of his presence to conclude a comprehensive political agreement. The other camp sees Abu Mazen as suffering from substantial problems on the Palestinian political scene. This camp argued that Abu Mazen may not last very long as PA president and thus Israel should continue to act as if there is no partner for peace. One of the major stories in the Israeli media this week was the news on Monday that about 70 Jewish settlers ascended to the Temple Mount, where they clashed with Muslim worshippers. Following the incident, Yediot Aharonot reported on 6 June that Israeli Minister of Defence Shaul Mofaz announced that Israel will give the Palestinian Authority detailed maps of the infrastructure in the settlements to be evacuated under the disengagement plan. The paper quoted Israeli security sources as saying that the initiative represents Tel Aviv's desire for greater coordination with the Palestinians during the withdrawal. Addressing the withdrawal, Akiva Eldar wrote an article in Haaretz on 30 May entitled "The Arabs Await the Phone Call." Eldar argues that the disengagement plan is problematic because, as he says, "the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was custom-made to fit the problematic shape of Yasser ('there is no partner') Arafat." Now, however, the situation has changed and there is a Palestinian partner for peace, recognised by the world and welcomed by the US president. Eldar quotes an article published by Abu Mazen calling on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "to abandon the unilateral policy and to immediately engage in direct negotiations 'to put an end, once and for all, to our tragic conflict.'" "Abu Mazen rightly wrote that time is the greatest enemy of the peace," Eldar wrote. "Time is the great enemy of the Palestinians who want to be freed of the occupation, and of the Israelis who want to get rid of its burden. Since 1967, as Moshe Dayan said, Israel has been awaiting a phone call from the Arabs. When the phone call came, for example from the late King Hussein, with a proposal to begin negotiations for peace in exchange for a withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, we didn't like the sound of the ring. If not for the trauma of the Yom Kippur War, the phone lines to Egypt would no doubt have remained cut to this day. "The first Intifada was needed to make Yitzhak Rabin lift the phone to the PLO. The second Intifada produced for the first time a conciliatory ring from Saudi Arabia and then from the Arab League... " While Eldar sees Abu Mazen as representing an ideal moment for a political agreement to end the conflict, Danny Rubinstein argued something else in an article in Haaretz published on 30 May entitled, "Not a minute without an attack." Rubinstein points out that Abu Mazen is facing real problems inside the PA with senior Fatah leaders, most prominently Farouk Qaddoumi, who has issued stinging criticism of Abbas. But, as Rubinstein says, "The quarrel with Qaddoumi is child's play compared to the problems with Hamas." The most prominent example is the dispute over the municipal elections in three districts won by Hamas. Rubinstein points to Abbas's problems inside Fatah and with other Palestinian factions, most prominently Hamas, in addition to the well-known problems with Israel, all of which ultimately lead to a continuation of violence: Fatah factions clash with one another; Fatah clashes, sometimes violently so, with Hamas; and Israeli conducts its own military operations. Rubinstein concludes, "so, Abbas can definitely say that nowadays, there's not a minute that goes by without an attack." For more information on debates in Israel society, please visit the website of Arabs Against Discrimination www.aad-online.org.
