By Salama Ahmed Salama Both supporters and detractors of the Palestinian-Israeli Wye Accord agree that it is, at best, another attempt, this time under American direction, to implement measures agreed upon in Oslo and Al-Khalil (Hebron), and then delayed for almost two years. Under the most recent accord, the Likud government, under Netanyahu's leadership, obtained new security arrangements backed by US guarantees. These guarantees are not merely political backing by Clinton and his administration; they enable the US to participate actively in the supervision and implementation of the accord through the intermediary of US security agencies, headed by the CIA, which has a pivotal role in its implementation. It is only natural that the European and other nations should hasten to support the accord after the recent period of tension and immobility. This had caused widespread international anxiety over the possibility that the conflict in the Middle East would erupt because of Israel refusing to meet its Oslo commitments. What concerns all these nations is that there should be a reasonable amount of stability in the region, regardless of the gains and losses accrued by the Israelis and Palestinians under the accord. This could also be the attitude of certain Arab governments, which stand on the margins of the Palestinian issue and which seek only to rid themselves of its problems so as to pave the way for future relations with Israel. As for the other Arab nations, which defended the Palestinian cause for over half a century and played an active role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, including its many wars and endless negotiations, they are interested in ensuring that this accord is above-board, that its provisions are fair to the Palestinian people and grant them their legitimate rights. As for the issue of a general settlement in the Middle East, these countries are interested in whether the accord offers a solid foundation on which to build a just and lasting peace. It is not enough that Arafat and those around him approve the accord; nor is it enough that the US and Israel also approve. We must pause before deciding whether it is a sound accord or not. Above all, we must not forget that Israel has signed similar accords in Oslo, Cairo and Al-Khalil, only to renege on its commitments at the first sign of an obstacle to implementation, or even after a minor change within the Israeli government. Its frequent refusals to fulfil its commitments were based on the pretext that it had found loopholes which represented a threat to Israel's security, or that the Israeli electorate had changed its mind and chosen a new government -- and, of course, it was always essential to respect the democratic system in Israel. These pretexts, which caused the failure of the Oslo Accords, are still being used. The Wye Accord will not only restrict the movement of the Palestinians and make Arafat and his National Authority hostages to harsh security considerations; it will not even permit the Palestinian opposition to make a sound. In contrast, the Israeli opposition are not prevented by the security agencies from demonstrating or resorting to violence. This glaring bias will inevitably lead to a confrontation between Arafat and the National Authority, on one hand, and a large section of the Palestinian people, who have learnt from bitter experience not to have faith in Israel or its promises, on the other. Nothing of any value has come of the peace accords so far. Those who bend over backwards to find positive aspects to the accord will come up against many contractions and loopholes over the next few days. The accord is full of ambiguities, which it is always Israel's prerogative to decipher. The first of these involves the third phase of redeployment. The most dangerous involves the building of settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Nor has Netanyahu been slow to reassure his opponents further to the right that the settlers are entirely free to build and expand settlements. Those who delude themselves into thinking that the new accord has solved all the problems and put the peace process back on track are committing a grave error. US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, for one, wasted no time in calling upon the Arabs to resume normalisation efforts with Israel. It is today evident that now is not the time for such optimism. Israel's true intentions are all too clear.
