The Sharm El-Sheikh summit has rekindled dreams of living longer, writes Emad Gad Tuesday's Sharm El-Sheikh summit was the talk of the Israeli media, and much of its coverage was notably optimistic. Most articles on the subject held that the summit was an important opportunity to achieve real progress in ending four years of bloody violence, an opportunity to build on the positive developments made after the death of president Yasser Arafat in November and Mahmoud Abbas's subsequent assumption of the Palestinian presidency. Some journalists opined that the summit was also a sign of improvement in Israeli-Egyptian relations, described by many as a state of "cold peace". Indeed, some saw it as the end of the cold peace era and a chance for Israel to make further inroads to normalising relations with other Arab states. In the article, "A summit to end the Intifada," published in Yediot Aharonot, Sever Plotzker wrote, "Fifty-two months after the eruption of the second Intifada in October 2000, the end of the uprising will be declared at the quadrilateral summit to be attended by Sharon, Mubarak, Abdullah and Abu Mazen. To be held in Egypt, the summit is an auspicious event, indicating a resumption of the process of reconciliation and normalisation between Israel and the Arab world. "First and foremost, the summit signals the end of the Intifada, a huge personal victory for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, considered by the Arab world only a short time ago as the king of murderers, the killer of Palestinians, with whom any dialogue was taboo. Sharon's unmoving stance towards Arafat has proven itself and achieved real accomplishments for Israel. "Since Arafat's death, there have been profound, positive changes in relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The summit in Egypt will provide the precious Arab umbrella to Abu Mazen as president of the Palestinian state, and it will reinforce the Middle East policy of the Bush administration. "The celebratory photos that will show Sharon spending some friendly time with three prominent Arab leaders will replace the images of gunfire, murder, terrorism, and assassinations produced by our region over the past four and a half years. It is a turning point with real historical significance." Plotzker continues, "nevertheless, the prime minister would do well to accept the idea of a popular referendum on the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the evacuation of all settlements in the Strip, especially today. There is plenty of time for a referendum; a referendum bill could be put before the Knesset within weeks, and a referendum held in three months... If Sharon prepares for the battle, he can guarantee that at least 65 per cent of voters in the referendum will vote yes to withdrawal." Yoram Kaniuk wrote an article in Yediot Aharonot, published on 1 February, entitled "Sharon and Abu Mazen join hands." He wrote, "since the crisis at Camp David, many people have thought that a peaceful solution cannot be reached. The right understood the problem of the 100-year conflict but it saw no solutions. As for the left, it understood the solutions but did not grasp the problem. Now Sharon and Abu Mazen are walking together without a date. Peace is not lurking on the horizon, but there are gradual solutions. No one is rejoicing, but living is much better than producing excuses. "Sharon is a strange bird on the Israeli scene. He fought with Yisrael Tal against the Bar-Lev line, realising the danger it held. When war broke out between Jordan and the Palestinians and Israel supported Jordan, Sharon clenched his teeth. In Lebanon, he was not as evil as they made him out to be; he simply lost his way. He sought to push Arafat to Jordan, make the Palestinians establish their state there, and cleave to the West Bank as set out in the Alon Plan, but everything became too complicated. When he crossed the Suez Canal, he fought with everyone, but he saved us and became a pariah. Ultimately, he became a prisoner of the dreams of those who came before him. (Golda Meir, Rabin, Peres, and Barak never ceased to disregard the expansion of settlements). "Sharon always put his eggs in one basket, even when he realised that things would not succeed with Arafat and was attacked by everyone. Today it turns out that he was right about that, too. "Abu Mazen was just as much of an extremist as Sharon, but he waited in silence to save his people if possible. Jews will not renounce a Jewish national state, and Arabs will not renounce a state for all its citizens, including the refugees. Thus Sharon and Abu Mazen are now working to draft a long-term, phased-in agreement in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip -- an agreement that no one predicted. The two old men have realised that both the left and the right were wrong, and that a new road must be built, whose curves will only be negotiated by our grandchildren. But at least we will have grandchildren." Ilan Marciano also wrote an article in Yediot Aharonot on 7 February, entitled "Rabbi Elyashiv supports a popular referendum on the disengagement plan". Marciano reports that the spiritual leader of the United Torah Judaism Party, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, asked UTJ MKs Avraham Ravitz and Moshe Gafni to support a popular referendum on the plan. "Rabbi Elyashiv's declaration is a historic change in the stance of United Torah Judaism on a referendum for any issue in the history of the state. The party has always feared that a popular referendum may be demanded in the future for other issues as well, such as that of the Sabbath. "Rabbi Elyashiv gave his approval for a referendum on the condition that it would only be conducted to decide whether to return land to the Arabs, not to determine the relation between religion and state. 'I told the rabbis that if the public referendum approved the disengagement plan, the settlers would leave their homes with great sadness and regret, but without violent resistance,' said MK Avraham Ravitz. 'They will accept the will of the people.' Rabbi Elyashiv responded that if this will prevent a civil war, it is an important issue." Roni Shakid wrote in the same paper on 30 January an article entitled "We cannot miss the opportunity this time". "Thus far, there has been no official declaration of a truce, but a ceasefire is in effect," Shakid wrote. "Such a change does not occur from one night to the next; it began with Arafat's death. "After the president was buried in Ramallah, all the lines were crossed. The Palestinian public is tired of living with the Intifada and has started making demands. Abu Mazen played not a small part in this, having let the realisation reach the Palestinian consciousness that terrorism is a double-edged weapon. He spoke about change but he did not promise it. He did not repeat slogans. He spoke to the average person face to face and persuaded his people that security and calm are the keys to change. It appears serious this time: Hamas has joined the ceasefire and the Palestinian police are enforcing the law and maintaining order. The security agencies are united, and a new government is on the way. For its part, Israel is doing everything possible. The window of opportunity is open, and we cannot let it pass us by. We cannot dawdle. The Palestinian public must be persuaded that it, and it alone, must banish terrorism from its midst." To read more articles from the Israeli press on this issue, please visit Arabs Against Discrimination www.aad- online.org.
