The Sharm El-Sheikh summit on Tuesday gave the region a new spirit of optimism, writes Ibrahim Nafie The first top-level meeting between Palestinians and Israelis since Camp David II in 2000, the Sharm El-Sheikh summit at last brought within reach an end to four and a half years of bloodshed and destruction. Egypt had worked closely with regional and international powers to set the objectives of the summit: a joint Palestinian- Israeli declaration of a ceasefire, a commitment on the part of Israel to set in motion a broad range of confidence building measures, and an Israeli assurance that the withdrawal of troops and dismantling of settlements will be conducted in coordination with the PA and constitute part of the roadmap. The summit could not have come at a more propitious time. In Palestine, Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has been working overtime to obtain international and regional support for reconstruction programmes aimed at alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people and building concrete foundations for an independent Palestinian state. He has also been campaigning intensively to prepare the Palestinian people for a new phase in the national struggle dependent not upon arms but on the power of domestic cohesion and collective determination. In Israel, the summit raised widespread optimism over the prospect of an end to the cycle of violence and the resumption of negotiations. In an opinion poll appearing in Yediot Aharanot on Tuesday morning 61 per cent of those polled believed that the summit would yield positive results while 60 per cent said they trusted Abbas. In addition, many Israeli writers have warned against allowing this opportunity to slip by. In keeping with this mood Sharon's advisers issued statements confirming the need to withdraw from the territories and work towards the creation of a Palestinian state. That such statements were issued from within the Sharon camp indicates a major shift from traditional rightwing insistence upon the boundaries of "Greater Israel". In Washington, too, there is a fresh spirit towards the Palestinian question, as epitomised by Bush's pledge to allocate $350 million in aid to the PA, the recent visit of his secretary-of-state to Israel and the occupied territories and his invitation to the Palestinian and Israeli prime ministers to visit Washington in spring. Particularly heartening as regards the negotiating process was Condoleezza Rice's appointment of Lt General William Ward as senior security coordinator between the Palestinians and Israelis and her appeal to Israel to refrain from undertaking any unilateral actions that alter realities on the ground in Palestine and to do all in its power to ensure the emergence of an independent democratic Palestinian state in accordance with the roadmap. The Bush administration was quick to welcome the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, which Rice hailed as an important step in efforts to revive the peace process and the roadmap. Moreover, on a crucial practical level, Bush proposed creating a crisis management team the task of which would be to ensure the continuation of peace negotiations even in the event of outbreaks of violence. If the foregoing characterises the climate in which Palestinian and Israeli leaders met in Sharm El-Sheikh, did the summit achieve its objectives? The Palestinian president and Israeli prime minister's pledges to halt all acts of violence against Israelis and Palestinians "everywhere" gives the answer. In this context, the two sides agreed to form specialised confidence-building committees. Israel will release Palestinian detainees, permit Palestinian workers to return to their jobs in Israel, and release Palestinian customs and tax revenues to the PA. We also find an answer in the agreement that Israel will withdraw its forces from Gaza and the West Bank and dismantle Jewish settlements in the northern West Bank, steps that will be implemented in coordination with the PA and considered as part of the roadmap. Moreover, they reached an understanding over the comprehensiveness of the negotiating process, in the sense that progress on the Palestinian track will create the impetus for reviving movement along the Syrian and Lebanese track, the ultimate aim being a just and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of UN resolutions and the principle of land for peace. Without a doubt, therefore, a new peace shuttle was successfully launched in Sharm El-Sheikh and the ground crew has every right to congratulate themselves. However, a long and danger-ridden course remains ahead. Mines are lurking in the form of extremism on both sides, as evidenced by the outcry against the summit issued from some quarters in the Arab world and the death threats against Sharon that have been spray painted on walls in Tel Aviv. Although such attitudes do not reflect the general tide of Palestinian or Israeli opinion, they nevertheless compel both Abbas and Sharon to double their efforts to work together to produce the tangible results that will eventually marginalise the extremists. In President Mubarak's words "success depends on both sides taking rapid and serious steps within a clear political framework. Only such a framework can offer the assurance that such steps are not temporary, not taken in a void and, therefore, give the people hope and restore their confidence in national aims and aspirations being realised through peaceful settlement efforts." The success of efforts to end the armed conflict and set in motion processes that will advance the cause of peace does not only reside in the "joint responsibility" that Mubarak urged the Palestinian and Israeli leaders to assume. A major onus also falls upon the donor nations that are scheduled to meet in London on 1 March. These countries, too, must fulfil their obligations to the Palestinian people by furnishing the material and financial aid needed for rebuilding of the Palestinian infrastructure and to lay the necessary economic, political, administrative and security foundations of a Palestinian state. We also expect the G8, in its meeting with the Arab League in Cairo next month, to move towards these goals. Judging from the reactions that have issued from various capitals in the wake of the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, they appear ready to follow through. The smiles and optimistic pronouncements of participants at the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, and even its concluding statement, will prove hollow if they are not followed by action on the ground. Everyone involved must now move on from expressing good intentions to the more difficult task of making real progress and restoring faith in the process itself. And there are signs that the atmosphere is conducive to making just such a positive leap. Egypt is playing an increasingly important role on both the Palestinian-Israeli and Syrian tracks, reflecting President Mubarak's announcement that "if Palestinians can't make progress under Sharon then it's unlikely that any progress will be made at all, since if he wants, he can provide the solution." Recent agreements between Egypt and Israel, including the Qualified Industrial Zone (QIZ) agreement and over border policing testify to the thaw in relations between Cairo and Tel Aviv. We should probably add to the list the fact that Egypt has agreed to host the Palestinian National Dialogue next March as well as news of the return of Egypt's ambassador to Tel Aviv in the coming few days. Europe has also been strengthening its regional role. The French, German and Spanish foreign ministers have all visited the region while British Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts to lend the peace process momentum are ongoing. But the most important player as far as building on the Sharm Al-Sheikh conference is concerned remains Washington. Middle Eastern issues currently dominate the agenda of the new administration, a fact underlined in Bush's State of the Union address delivered last Thursday. Through its involvement in Iraq and its heavy military presence in the region the US appears at times to have become a Middle Eastern power and the days when it operated by proxy -- i.e. through Israel -- are long gone. It became clear at Sharm El-Sheikh that it is the Palestinians rather than the Israelis who are making preparations for their post-conference responsibilities. Several announced -- and unannounced -- meetings were held in Cairo, Damascus and the West Bank to finalise a unified Palestinian position and establish rules for pan-Palestinian negotiations. We now have an opportunity to put Sharm El-Sheikh's resolutions into action. The question remains, though, whether the parties most concerned will display the necessary will.
