Osama El-Ghazali Harb* detects signs that Washington has finally understood the importance of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict Once again there is a glimmer of hope that progress will be made in advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process, especially on the Palestinian-Israeli track. While we cannot yet foresee the direction the peace process will take it is impossible to overlook the signs of renewed activity. In terms of Palestinian-Israeli relations the death of Yasser Arafat has created a situation more conducive to negotiations. The irony is that it was Arafat himself who steered the Palestinians towards a peaceful settlement with the Israelis through the 1993 Oslo accords. Over four decades Arafat succeeded in changing the world's perception of the Palestinian cause from a simple refugee issue to one of national struggle for liberation and the founding of an independent Palestinian state. Confrontation with Israel was the dominating theme of Palestinian discourse from the 1960s to the mid-1990s, and it was Arafat, as we mentioned earlier, that introduced the concept of peaceful settlement. The process of Palestinian- Israeli negotiations soon floundered, however, meeting opposition in both Israeli and Palestinian societies. It finally collapsed with the failure of the Camp David 2000 round sponsored by former US president Bill Clinton. The US and Israel spared no effort in heaping blame for this failure on Arafat. He was also criticised for his lack of control over those Palestinian radical groups that militarised the Intifada. Post-9/11 Arafat was increasingly portrayed as a supporter of terrorism. He spent the last three years of his life a prisoner in his residence in Ramallah where all hope of reviving the peace process remained captive as long as he was captive. Arafat is now gone. The world paid tribute to his historical role in the service of his people through official ceremonies held in Paris and Cairo, while in Ramallah there was an outpouring of Palestinian grief. The respect and emotion expressed at all three events did not mask the fact that one era had ended and another was about to begin. The Palestinian struggle would no longer be dominated by a charismatic and exceptional historic figure, but rather would from henceforth be steered by a seasoned leadership, able to deal flexibly and decisively with a radically different international, Arab and Palestinian environment. In this respect the holding of democratic, internationally recognised Palestinian elections next month is a significant step towards political reform and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. On the Israeli side Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally disengage from Gaza and some parts of the West Bank was approved by the Israeli government in June 2004 despite opposition from segments of both Israeli and Palestinian society. It was given momentum by Egyptian support. Egypt announced its approval of the Israeli withdrawal but stipulated that it must be considered a step towards the implementation, rather than being an alternative to, the roadmap. The prospect of the Labour Party being included in the Israeli ruling coalition also raises hopes that disengagement might be the prelude to a real, comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian settlement. Egypt has given clear signals that it is re-engaging with new energy in the peace process. It has released Azzam Azzam, convicted of spying for Israel, after he served only half of his sentence. While at first glance this appeared linked to the release of six Egyptian students arrested on Israeli territory, it has, in fact, a deeper significance, underlined by President Hosni Mubarak's statement to the effect that the Palestinians should be able to make progress with Sharon, who has the capability of advancing the peace process if he so desires. Egypt also signed a QIZ agreement with Israel, and concluded an agreement under which 750 Egyptian military policemen will secure a section of the Egyptian-Israeli border. Moreover, Egypt will host a meeting of Palestinian political factions in March 2005 to discuss Palestinian policy. There have also been significant efforts on the international level. There has been a flurry of diplomatic activity, and three European foreign ministers have visited the area. The most significant contribution remains that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is determined to kick start the peace process. It appears that plans to convene a conference on the issue in London are well advanced, and there is talk of possible upcoming visits by Blair to some Arab countries as well as Israel. This increased activity is obviously related to the support pledged by US President George W Bush upon winning his second term in office. One might also argue that it is based on a sense of moral obligation on Britain's part to help establish the Palestinian state having, in the early 20th century, played the most significant role in establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. But the most important factor in rekindling hopes for peace is the new US stance. There have been repeated references by US officials, including Bush, to advancing the peace process and establishing an independent Palestinian state. Washington's relationship to the Middle East and its problems has altered in the last three years. By virtue of its military presence and its vital interests in the area the US has become a resident regional power. One need only cast a glance at the 2004 presidential campaign to see this fundamental change. US foreign policy and the US presence in Iraq were major campaign issues. The public was caught up in discussions about Falluja, the peace process and reform in the Middle East in an unprecedented way. The US no longer seeks to implement its policies and defend its interests in the area by proxy. It is directly involved, and its involvement has tangible costs in terms of US military and civilian casualties. As the US has become immersed in the area, it has arrived, slowly and unwillingly, at a more mature and sensitive understanding of the perils of this conflict, especially its Palestinian-Israeli core. This understanding need not embrace the Arab contention that the Palestinian issue is the central or primary Arab cause. This is oversimplistic -- it overlooks real political, cultural and social problems. The US, however, must understand that the continuation of this conflict has a direct impact on US interests in the area. The forces actively resisting the US presence in Iraq justify their position by arguing not only is this an illegitimate occupation but also that it extends, and allies itself with, Israeli domination of the region. US justifications for the war on terrorism do not persuade the Arab public because Washington often equates legitimate Palestinian resistance to occupation with terrorism. However important and justified US calls for reform in the area are, they remain suspect to large segments of Arab society who interpret them as a means to move the conflict from centre-stage. Washington has slowly come to terms with the complexity of the situation, and in doing so it has raised hopes that this time there will be serious moves to peace. They are long overdue. * The writer is editor-in-chief of the quarterly A l- Siyassa Al-Dawlia (international Politics),issued by Al -Ahram, and member of the Shura Council.
