Ibrahim Nafie reviews developments since the Sharm El-Sheikh summit Over the past week Palestinians and Israelis have been working to bolster the ceasefire agreed in Sharm El-Sheikh. This, together with the sustained efforts of Egypt and other regional and international powers to support them, furnishes concrete evidence of the new and constructive spirit ushered in by the summit. Many have described the Palestinian- Israeli peace process as a train of lost opportunities and failed summits. The demonstrable desire on both sides to end to the cycle of violence through the small reciprocal steps necessary to pave the way to big decisions may well put paid to this characterisation. Many leading political analysts share this view. In "Without yarmulkes and kufiyas" in Yediot Aharonot of 11 February Yair Lapid observed that the Palestinian and Israeli public appear ready to give their leaders a chance. Moreover, this time, he said, the leaders did not speak in the name of history and Sharon refrained from reciting his favourite passages from the Torah. Rather "they met in order to agree that they could control the battle without always having to look behind them." Equally upbeat, Anton La Guardia, in the Daily Telegraph of 9 February, believes that unlike previous summits Sharm El-Sheikh is not destined to failure. This is because "both sides are tired of a conflict that has killed more than 4,000 people and set back the cause of peace by more than four years." Sharm El-Sheikh was given impetus by "a flurry of recent moves towards peace -- Israeli withdrawal from West Bank cities, the release of Palestinian prisoners, the imminent return of the Egyptian and Jordanian ambassadors to Tel Aviv, and the return of the Bush administration to active diplomacy in the Middle East". In addition, La Guardia believes that "Sharon is a changed man. The political 'father of the settlements' is now planning to use the army to evict thousands of settlers from Gaza, under fire if necessary". He adds that "the death of Arafat and the death of Sharon's dream of 'Greater Israel' have removed two large obstacles to peace- making in the Holy Land." Shlomo Aveniry, too, drew considerable heart from the summit because, as he wrote in the Financial Times of 10 February, "Abbas met with Sharon, President Mubarak renewed his contacts with Sharon and everyone began to move together to end the violence, the fear and the hatred." More significantly, he stressed that the fact that this move was not mediated by the US or Europe but propelled by the desires of the concerned parties "confirms that peace can be achieved this time and that a new era of relations will begin in the Middle East". Nevertheless, while congratulations are in order for the successful launch of the peace shuttle in Sharm El-Sheikh, its mission will not be complete until it has brought a just and comprehensive settlement to the Palestinian cause. This mission is fraught with dangers and both sides will need all their reserves of determination if they are to be overcome. Again, most analysts agree. In Yediot Aharonot, on the day of the summit, Meretz leader Yosso Sarid cautioned: "If Abu Mazen and Sharon stop short at what they achieved in Sharm El-Sheikh and a few token gestures, the Intifada is certain to flare up again sooner or later. There will be a long road ahead after the summit. On the way, blood-shedders will be released from prison. This is painful but inevitable. Any permanent agreement must pass through the prisons which will open their doors to release killers. But in the end, everyone will be set free." Also warning of the difficulties ahead, La Guardia wrote: "Sharon and Abbas seem able to agree on the first steps: ceasefire, normalisation of Palestinian life, Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, creation of a Palestinian mini-state. Then what? ... For Israelis and Palestinians, 'peace' means very different things: Israelis want 'security' and an end to conflict, while Palestinians want 'justice' and independence. Unless Sharon and Abbas can agree...on the kind of final peace they seek to achieve, then any interim steps they take will prove short-lived." He goes on to urge the outside world to help by, for example, sending observers and offering aid and expertise to help rebuild Palestinian institutions. Bush, in particular, has an important role to play. " [He] can help both sides by spelling out more of the detail of a permanent peace agreement. He has already backed Sharon....He now needs to support Abbas." Supporting Abbas entails allaying Palestinian anxieties over Israeli intentions. As Sharmela Devi points out in the Financial Times of 9 February, the Palestinians worry that the Gaza withdrawal will not be followed by similar moves in the West Bank, a fear compounded by steps that Israel continues to take on the ground. The general consensus, then, is that the Palestinians and Israelis must continue to press forward in the spirit of Sharm El-Sheikh and that the international community must offer all possible encouragement and assistance. That Egypt has taken this to heart is evident in its efforts to help both sides build on what they achieved during the summit and to prevail upon international powers to provide crucial financial and technical aid to the Palestinians. Egypt is also continuing its dialogue with the Palestinian factions. Recent talks with senior Hamas and Jihad officials over the need to give the ceasefire and negotiations a chance proved so successful that Egypt was encouraged to send General Mustafa El- Buheiri at the head of a delegation to meet with other Palestinian factions. All Palestinian factions have now accepted Egypt's invitation to resume their national dialogue in Cairo at the beginning of March. If that conference succeeds in producing a national agenda to which all factions adhere, all sides will be better poised to take the steps necessary to create the climate conducive to a fruitful resumption of negotiations.
