A last chance for peace?

By Chinmaya R. Gharekhan

THE COMING few days will be extremely crucial for West Asia. They will decide the personal fates of the Palestinian leader, Mr. Yasser Arafat, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Barak. Even more importantly, we will see, before the end of this week, how the entire region of West Asia will evolve over the coming years, whether Israel will finally obtain the recognition, however grudging, of its Arab neighbours, allowing it to live in a reasonably secure environment and its citizens to move about free from the fear of suicide bombs and whether the Palestinian state, which, if not quite around the corner, is quite close to it, will enjoy a reasonably livable relationship with Israel which it would certainly need.

The trigger for the spate of extremely hectic activity which shall be witnessed over the next days is the last-ditch effort of the U. S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton, to break the deadlock between Israel and the Palestinians by offering his own bridging proposals. As is known, the Camp David Summit in July had broken down essentially over the issue of Jerusalem. Mr. Arafat was insisting on sovereignty over East Jerusalem which Mr. Barak could not concede.

Since then, much blood has been shed in the streets of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip as well as Israel. A very large percentage of the 350 lives lost was Palestinian. This has greatly weakened the negotiating position of both leaders. It followed that both sides must gain something and give up something if a deal is to be struck in the remaining days of the Clinton Presidency.

Details of Mr. Clinton's proposals have not been released. In fact, there is no written text of the proposals. However, enough has been leaked out to form a fairly good picture of what is involved. Of the three issues holding up agreement, the one relating to territory, surprisingly, appears to be the least difficult to resolve. The Palestinians want 100 per cent of the West Bank, in fact a return to the pre-1967 line.

Israel will not and cannot agree, for two reasons. First, thousands of Jewish settlers will be left under the jurisdiction of the future Palestinian state. Second, Israel says it is strategically vital for it to control a corridor along the Jordan river to ensure that it will not be subjected to any invasion from the east. A compromise has all along been envisaged whereby the Palestinians will receive territory equivalent to 100 per cent of the West Bank, almost all of it in the West Bank itself, but a small part elsewhere, possibly in the Negev.

Mr. Clinton is reported to have suggested 95 per cent in the West Bank and 5 per cent somewhere else. This four to five per cent of the West Bank, in which 80 per cent of the settlers live, will be annexed to Israel. Mr. Arafat is holding out for 96 to 97 per cent. Obviously, this issue is not a deal-breaker. A closely related issue is Israel's demand to station its own troops in the Jordan river corridor for a fixed number of years. Israel is insisting on this period being three years whereas the other side wants to restrict it to two years. The gap does not seem unbridgeable.

The other two issues are infinitely more complex and emotion- charged: Jerusalem and refugees. Mr. Clinton seems to have proposed that the Palestinians will be given sovereignty over the Temple Mount or Al Haram Al Sharif. The Palestinians will refrain from any digging or carrying out archaeological excavations beneath the Temple Mount or its vicinity. Israel will have sovereignty over the Western Wall or the Wailing Wall.

The old city, which, for most people, is synonymous with Jerusalem, will thus have divided sovereignty, roughly in equal parts. The Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem will go to Palestine under its sovereignty and large settlement blocks such as Ma'ale Adumim will form part of an enlarged Jerusalem.

In return for this gain, Mr. Arafat will have to agree to make a very major and, for him, an extremely difficult, almost impossible, concession. The Palestinians will be required to give up the right of return for the refugees who have been living in exile since the 1948 war and whose right to return to their homes in what is now Israel has been affirmed in countless resolutions of the United Nations, starting with resolution 194 of 1948. Return would be allowed on humanitarian grounds such as family reunification, but the others will have the right of returning only to the homeland offered by the new Palestinian state.

The refugees are a volatile constituency for the Palestinian leadership. Mr. Arafat has to worry not just about the opposition parties, Hamas and Jihad, but also his own supporters. On the other hand, Israel regards this issue as one of life and death. An additional one million Palestinians, if not all the 3.5 million registered with United Nations Relief and Works Agency, will permanently destroy the Jewish character of the Israeli state.

While some people believe that this is bound to happen at some point of time in the future, given the near zero rate of growth of the Jewish population and the 3.5 to four per cent growth among the Arab population of Israel, no Israeli leader of any persuasion will agree to what they perceive as a certain doom of their state by agreeing to a large influx of Palestinians. An international fund to compensate the refugees will be set up.

Mr. Barak has said openly that if he succeeds in reaching an agreement with Mr. Arafat, he expects to win huge in the prime ministerial elections to be held on February 6. He has indicated that if Mr. Arafat accepts the American ideas, Israel will also need to accept them.

The most recent polls in Israel suggest a majority against the package, but this could change under the dynamics of the peace process and the hopes and expectations of living in security at home as well as the prospect of gaining the acceptance of the Arab and the wider international community.

For Mr. Arafat, the stakes are equally, if not more, vital. While he may not mind being accused of missing yet another opportunity, he certainly must weigh carefully the odds of getting a better deal at some point of time in future.

Egypt's President, Mr. Hosni Mubarak, is reported to have advised Mr. Arafat that he might get better terms through war but certainly not through peace. If Mr. Ariel Sharon wins the Israeli election in February, as well he could in the absence of an agreement, the chances for a peaceful peace would recede by many years.

The prima facie positive feature of Mr. Clinton's proposals is that they offer something significant to both sides and demand equally substantial concessions from each.

Can Mr. Arafat convince his own people that obtaining sovereignty over the Haram Al Sharif and East Jerusalem, with the Palestinian flag flying over the sacred Muslim monument, is enough of a diplomatic, and indeed military, victory and more than makes up for abandoning the Palestinians' right of return? One must always expect the unexpected in West Asia.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Beckoning new millennium
Next     : Learning without teaching