Talking peace, readying for war

After two rounds of "tough" talks with President Clinton, Yasser Arafat left the White House late Tuesday night with the tightest of lips. He had flown to Washington the night before seeking 25 "clarifications" on the proposals the US President had laid before Israel and the Palestinians as a basis for resuming negotiations toward a Framework Agreement sometime before the end of Clinton's presidency on 20 January.
It remains unclear whether the Palestinian leader received the answers he sought. The most US officials would say in the wake of the meeting with Clinton was that Arafat had recommitted the Palestinian Authority to resuming security cooperation with Israel in an attempt to stanch the "violence" presently sweeping the occupied territories. It is a gale that, on Tuesday alone, left one Palestinian dead from army fire and six Israelis (four of them soldiers) wounded from Palestinian guerrilla attacks in Gaza and the West Bank.
Arafat's next port of call is a meeting with Arab foreign ministers in Cairo today. It is only after this consultation that he will give any definitive response to the Clinton proposals. In the way of Palestinian (and Arab) diplomacy, it is unlikely to be an unconditional "no." But it is mighty difficult to see how it can be an unconditional "yes" given the public reservations with which Palestinian negotiators have received the proposals so far.
In a letter circulated on Monday to foreign envoys in Jerusalem, PLO negotiator Yasser Abed Rabbo wrote that the US proposals, "taken together and as presented without clarification, fail to satisfy the conditions for a permanent peace". Among the numerous objections raised in the letter, two concerns stood out.
One is that the proposal that Israel annex 80 per cent of the settlers in the West Bank would essentially leave any Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem without territorial contiguity. The second is that the proposals as they now stand interpret the Palestinian refugees' right of return as a repatriation to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza but not to their homes and lands inside Israel. Whatever "clarifications" Clinton did or did not give Arafat at their meeting, it is difficult to imagine any change in the proposals that would assuage Palestinian anxieties on either of these issues.
Nor indeed satisfy the increasing reservations expressed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Following a car bomb blast in the Israeli town of Netanya on Monday, he announced that Israel was halting all diplomatic contacts with Palestinians and instituting a policy of "unilateral separation" from the Palestinian areas in the West Bank and Gaza. That policy had already been in effect, with the Israeli army dividing Gaza into three disconnected enclaves and the West Bank into 24. In the wake of the Netanya hit, Barak ordered the closure of Gaza airport and Palestinian border crossings into Jordan, and barred all goods entering Palestinian areas save for food and medicine.
As for the region, Barak confirmed on Monday that he had instructed the army to prepare for war should an agreement not be reached with the Palestinians and the Intifada continue. "I don't want [war] to happen, I don't wish it but, if it does happen, Israel will have to win," he told a news conference in Jerusalem in the glummest of tones.
When Clinton unveiled his blueprint on 23 December, he said the two sides had "never been closer" to reaching a peace agreement. That may or may not be an accurate description of the political reality. But in the 12 days that have elapsed since, it may be more accurate to say that if peace was close, war is closer.
Before heading for Washington Arafat stopped in Cairo on Monday for consultations with President Hosni Mubarak, his third round of talks with Egyptian officials in eight days. Arafat was last in Cairo on 28 December when Barak did not show up for a three-way summit at the last minute due to the deadlock between the two sides.
While the Palestinians said that they wanted more specifics on the US ideas, Cairo agreed that the American initiative must provide a "just" solution for the Palestinians and that further clarifications are needed. Arafat had earlier stressed that the future status of East Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees were "fundamental questions," implying that they were the sticking issues in the Clinton plan.
Foreign Minister Amr Moussa said after the Mubarak-Arafat talks that US ideas to finalise a peace deal were not "a take it or leave it" offer, but rather the Palestinians were "formulating an opinion on the ideas." He added that Egypt would not interfere in the Palestinian decision-making process, "but they cannot sign something they know nothing about. We understand their position."
Moussa sounded a pessimistic note about possible time frames for concluding a peace, saying that "so far there are no indications" that the two sides will reach agreement before Clinton leaves office. He also denied rumours that Clinton will be hosting a meeting between Arafat and Barak on 10 January. (see pp.4&5)
Graham Usher in Jerusalem and Nevine Khalil in Cairo
Related stories:
Killing as campaign strategy
Between right and realisation
Lebanese anxiety
In pursuit of clarity
A role for Clinton beyond 20 January?
The American bridge 28 Dec. 2000 - 3 Jan. 2001
See Intifada in focus
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor