A violent drift in West Asia

THE POLITICAL INTRANSIGENCE of Israel and the Palestinian leadership is increasingly acquiring the incendiary proportions of a presumptive final battle between the two adversaries. If a decisive war has not been declared by either side at this stage, the reason has less to do with their matchingly aggressive moods. The overall restraining influence of some Arab states in West Asia seems to be the only positive factor at work at this moment, while the United States is still busy reviewing its priorities and options in that region under the present Bush administration. The prime international issue at stake remains as clear as ever before - the need for ``final status'' talks involving the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Palestinian statehood as a morally sound and politically workable proposition is, of course, the crux of the peace puzzle that has not yet been sorted out. Under the premiership of Mr. Ariel Sharon, who loves to excel as a modern-day Jewish hawk, Israel's methods are actually beginning to acquire the stridency of a kind unknown since the commencement of a peace process, which is completely botched for months now, way back in the early 1990s. However, the tragedy of seemingly interminable violence of a cyclical nature has come into renewed international focus in the latest context of some horrific incidents. The killings of an Israeli boy and his U.S.-born associate have evoked a reprisal by the Sharon administration in the form of a renewed military thrust into a pocket of Arab territory, which had already been handed to the Palestinian Authority under a much-heralded accord that at one stage punctuated the now-regressive peace process.

The U.S., which played a critical role in setting the peace process in motion, has once again called for a halt to the cycle of violence concerning the Palestinians and Israelis. The slaying of an American citizen is of undoubted concern to the U.S., but the Bush administration seems to prefer a deeper review of the peace-promotive choices before it. In one sense, the U.S. has yet to recover from the frustrations of the previous Clinton administration, especially in regard to the ``final status'' issues such as the political fate of Jerusalem as also the Jewish settlements in acknowledged Arab territories and the contours of a juridical Palestinian state. For the present, therefore, Washington is inclined to practise the art of the possible. While not wishing to go beyond facilitating a renewed dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians at an appropriate time, Washington is merely calling for an end to the cycle of carnage.

Viewing the imperative of peace differently, Mr. Sharon wants ``an end to (Palestinian) terror'', not just a scale-down, as the precondition for any parleys with the Palestinian leader, Mr. Yasser Arafat. Mr. Sharon, who tends to dismiss the simple merit of talks as a confidence-building exercise, has not really given up the military solution. There can be no other plausible explanation for the manner in which Israel has embarked on a new missile offensive against the seat of Mr. Arafat's ``security'' establishment. Yet, the present wave of turmoil has brought the issue of Jewish settlements into some unprecedented international scrutiny, given that the trouble broke out in the context of the findings by a panel headed by Mr. George Mitchell, a former U.S. Senator. The Bush administration has let an impression gain ground to the effect that the Mitchell Commission's views might provide room for contemplating a new U.S. initiative in regard to the Israel-Palestinian question. But Egypt and Jordan may also need to shape the outlook in West Asia.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Insensitive to basic norms
Next     : Universal and free AIDS care