|
|
Will Clinton recognize 'Palestine'?
Policy examined as a May 1999 deadline looms
MATTHEW DORF
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
It took President Truman 11 minutes to recognize Israel's declaration of statehood in 1948. How long will it take President Clinton to recognize "Palestine" if Yasser Arafat declares statehood next May?
The question is significant because the U.S. reaction to such a controversial declaration could affect the future of all Middle East peace negotiations as well as severely sour U.S.-Israel relations.
Israel, most American Jewish groups and many members of Congress want Clinton to wait for the Jewish state to agree - if it does - to Palestinian statehood at the negotiating table. But the Clinton administration has refused to make such an explicit statement. Instead, the White House, State Department and the president himself have adopted a position opposing unilateral actions and stating that statehood is an issue for final-status talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The issue, for many, is not the merits of a Palestinian state. Israel's Labor Party has formally dropped its opposition to statehood, and even hawkish Cabinet minister Ariel Sharon has said a Palestinian state is inevitable. The important thing, says Sharon, is that Israel be involved in shaping it.
Instead, the debate focuses on how a state would emerge. Allowing Arafat to declare statehood without negotiations would take away a major Israeli bargaining chip in the final-status negotiations, which under the Oslo peace accords were intended to focus on Jerusalem, settlements, refugees - and borders. A statehood declaration, though likely to be supported by a host of nations, would be widely regarded as a gross violation of the Oslo process.
The accords, which placed a deadline of May 4, 1999, on the interim period, prohibit both sides from taking steps to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "pending the outcome of the permanent-status negotiations." Such a move could, in the view of many analysts, trigger widespread violence.
Feeling the clock ticking down to next May, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is said to have asked the United States for a letter of assurance that Washington would not recognize a unilateral declaration of Palestinian state. Such a guarantee would come as part of a presumed Israeli agreement to the U.S. peace plan, which is the subject of negotiations which resumed this week between senior Palestinians and Israelis (see story on page 25).
The U.S. plan calls for a further Israeli redeployment of 13 percent from the West Bank, coupled with concrete steps by the Palestinians on security matters.
Many analysts doubt that Clinton would recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Many also believe that Clinton would not support Arafat for domestic political reasons. By next May, Vice President Al Gore is expected to have begun his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. It is unlikely that Gore would want to seek Jewish votes and financial support on a platform endorsing Palestine without Israel's support.
What many are trying to figure out is whether the U.S. view on a Palestinian state has changed. Before Israel and the Palestinians launched the Oslo peace accords in 1993, the United States had a clear policy against the establishment of a Palestinian state - as did Israel. But as the sides came closer together, U.S. policy shifted to declaring that statehood is an issue for negotiations.
Some analysts believe the United States has again shifted policy and has not ruled out recognizing a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. U.S. officials have denied such a change.
Matthew Dorf writes from Washington, D.C.
|
