By Graham Usher At 7pm on Sunday, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators met for their first official talks in 16 months in an effort to revive the dormant Oslo process. Less than 12 hours before, Israel had gone onto a full-scale security alert following what appeared to be a botched bomb attack in the heart of West Jerusalem. Israeli politicians were swift to draw the connection between "peace" and "terror", with those on the right claiming that the failed bombing was an attempt to "pressure" Israel in the negotiations and those on the left arguing that "a stalled peace process plays into the hands of the extremists". But the connection may be more apparent than real. One reason is that very few Palestinians believe the current "direct talks" are likely to go anywhere, including opposition forces like Hamas. A second is that the circumstances surrounding the alleged attack remain murky. At around 8.15am on Sunday, a white mini-van burst into flames on Jaffa Road, the same street that saw two Hamas suicide operations in the Spring of 1996. Following a search of the van, Israeli police said it contained petroleum, gas canisters and nails but no explosives. They later announced the driver (who suffered severe burns) was Jalal Roumani, a 30 year-old Palestinian refugee from Al-Amari camp near Ramallah. Roumani had been imprisoned by Israel in 1990 for "Intifada activities" and membership of Hamas. According to his mother, however, he had "given up politics" in 1994 to work for the construction business owned by the family. She is adamant that the cause of the blast was a work accident. The Palestinian Authority (PA) was less convinced. Following raids on Al-Amari camp in which "dozens" of Palestinians were picked up, PA security sources said that Roumani may have been preparing a bomb attack but, given its "amateurish execution", it was probably from "personal motives" rather than under orders from Hamas. It is a line with which Hamas concurs, at least publicly. "It's clear Hamas is not responsible for this attack," commented Hamas' Gaza spokesman, Mahmoud Zahar, on Monday. This appears to be Israel's reading, if Binyamin Netanyahu's unusually restrained response to the "attack" is anything to go by. While using the event to justify Israel's insistence on "security and mutuality in the agreement with the Palestinians," he did not hold the PA responsible for the attack. Nor did he order a full-scale closure of the West Bank and Gaza, the usual Israeli reaction to suicide operations, botched or otherwise. On the contrary, he continued to emphasise that a deal with the Palestinians on the stalled second redeployment was "closer than many Israelis think." It was an optimism shared by his chief negotiator, Israel's Defence Minister, Yitzak Mordechai. "I am encouraged," Mordechai reportedly told US special envoy, Dennis Ross, after the Sunday meeting, "though there is still a lot of work left to do." The official Palestinian reaction was cautious. "We have discussed all the outstanding issues," said PLO chief negotiator, Mahmoud Abbas. "And we will follow up in order to hear more ideas". The unofficial reaction was critical. PA security chief, Mohamed Dahlan, said at no point in the meeting did the Israeli delegation address the US initiative, supposedly the basis for the direct talks. In fact, the "ideas" Israel wants to negotiate are amendments to the US proposal for a 13.1 per cent further Israeli redeployment in the West Bank. One is that around three per cent of the redeployment be classified as "Area D" where Israel would not only retain security responsibility but also the power of veto over any Palestinian construction or zoning plans. The second is Israel's insistence that Yasser Arafat again reconvene the PLO's Palestinian National Council (PNC) to "complete the process of revising the Palestinian National Charter," as called for in the 1997 Hebron Agreement. Publicly, the PLO has ruled out all and any changes to the US initiative. Yet the fact that negotiations are continuing has led to speculation (mainly in the Israeli press) that a deal is being cooked. According to a report in Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper on Tuesday, US officials are quoted as saying that the Palestinians would accept a redeployment where three per cent is classified, not as Area D, but as a "nature preserve", in which both Palestinian and Israeli construction is prohibited. In return, Israel would drop its demand for a reconvening of the PNC and accept a meeting of the 18 member PLO executive, as recommended in the US proposal. There are signs that Mordechai at least is amenable to such "compromises". If so, a deal could be in the offing. The question is whether Netanyahu wants a deal. The Israeli leader's call to the PA on Monday to "engage with us continuously, day and night... to achieve an agreement" conjures up two possible scenarios, say Palestinian and Israeli analysts. One is that Netanyahu is submitting changes to the US initiative on the hunch that Arafat will reject them. At that point, he will proclaim to the world (i.e. US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) that it is not he but the Palestinians who are holding up the peace process. The other scenario is that Netanyahu has reached the end of the long rope the US has given him over the second redeployment. His aim now is to continue the "direct talks" until 29 July when the Knesset breaks for its long summer recess. It is at this point, say Israeli sources, that Netanyahu could agree to a second redeployment more or less in line with the US initiative without the threat of a no confidence vote in his government. If elements of his coalition opposed the agreement, Netanyahu would use the recess for deterrence, either by threatening to form a national unity government without them or by calling for early elections in November. Either eventuality would put the Oslo process on hold and could prepare the ground for another six years of a Netanyahu premiership. For the Palestinians, the various scenarios would have the same result: an agreement may or may not be near, but the redeployment is as far away as ever.
