|
|
November 19, 2004/Kislev 6 5765, Vol. 57, No. 12
Israel after Arafat
Do major players have the will to make peace happen?
LESLIE SUSSER
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
The post-Arafat era has begun with high hopes in Washington, London, Jerusalem and even Ramallah - but many of the obstacles that prevented peace in Arafat's day remain, and it's not clear whether any of the major players has the single-minded determination to make peace happen.
The United States is not as actively involved as it may need to be; the Europeans, who would like to be intimately involved, don't have the necessary political clout; the Israeli leadership, insulated by strong American backing and facing a recalcitrant right wing, sees no need to hurry; and the new Palestinian leaders, hamstrung by radical, violent opponents, may not be able to make concessions beyond what the late Palestinian Authority president countenanced.
President Bush gave an inkling of the ambivalence inherent in American policy after a meeting last week in Washington with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Bush rejected Blair's call for an international conference and a speedy transition to talks on a final peace agreement, saying the Palestinians first would have to stop terrorism against Israel. At the same time, however, Bush said he still believed the establishment of a Palestinian state is the only way to resolve the conflict.
The essence of American policy can be gleaned from those ostensibly incongruous statements: The United States will help the Palestinians achieve statehood on the condition that they stop violence and carry out economic, security and political reforms. In other words, it's up to them to make the first move.
Bush also seemed to alter the time frame for Palestinian statehood.
Whereas the "road map" peace plan - presented in 2002 - spoke of 2005 as the target date, Bush said he was determined to work toward a Palestinian state by the time he leaves office, in January 2009.
This reinforced the president's main message to the Palestinians: They must get their act together before the United States will be ready to help. If they're slow, there will be a price to pay in the deferral of national aspirations. The quicker they act, the quicker statehood can be achieved.
European officials believe the American role primarily should be to help the new Palestinian leadership es-tablish its legitimacy. First, they say, the United States can help with elections for a new P.A. president by leaning on Israel to allow optimum conditions for a free election, with as few signs of occupation as possible.
The election process will have two salutary effects, the Europeans argue: bringing to power a Palestinian leader accepted by the people and creating a sense of democracy at work.
The Europeans also believe that they and the Americans can aid Palestinian demo-cratization by helping to build institutions and train P.A. security forces. But they know that Europe alone cannot effect a breakthrough, and that the United States must take the lead.
As for the Palestinians, they cannot take things forward unless the new leaders establish a stable government. So far, the signs do not augur well.
A Nov. 14 incident in which militiamen from the PLO's mainstream Fatah movement opened fire on the mourners' tent for Arafat - when his heir apparent, Mahmoud Abbas, and Gaza strongman Mo-hammed Dahlan were inside - is symptomatic of a fairly widespread refusal to accept Abbas' authority. Two of Abbas's bodyguards were killed.
Though it apparently wasn't an assassination attempt, the shooting was meant to warn Abbas not to diverge from Arafat's hard-line. The assailants shouted, "No Abbas, no Dahlan and no CIA," suggesting that some Palestinians see the two as American puppets capable of selling out Palestinian interests.
For his part, Abbas believes only the United States can deliver the goods.
On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wants to give Abbas every chance, or at least give the impression of doing so. Despite opposition from some of his closest supporters in the Cabinet, Sharon seems set to allow eastern Jerusalem Arabs to vote in the Palestinian election, even though that part of the city was annexed by Israel in 1968 and Israeli officials have been wary of any step that could bolster Palestinian claims there.
Sharon also has the defense establishment working on contingency plans. The National Security Council is considering how Israel's planned unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank can be coordinated with the Pale-stinians, and the Israel Defense Forces and the Defense Ministry are drafting blueprints for Palestinian security reforms as well as steps to end the intifada.
Sharon also is contemplating gestures that could help Abbas build authority, such as releasing prisoners and withdrawing the Israeli army from Palestinian cities.
On Nov. 15, for example, after an operation that lasted several weeks, Israeli forces withdrew from the West Bank city of Jenin.
|
|
