India News Online » News Analysis » India and the World » 

West Asia : Hopes for peace retread

	January 08, 2001

The efforts of the US President, Mr. Bill Clinton, to strike a peace deal in West Asia appears to be floundering. With less than two weeks left for Mr. Clinton’s term, Israelis and Palestinians voiced increasing pessimism that West Asia deal is in the making. Israeli negotiator Mr. Gileard Sher after talks with Mr. Clinton on January 5 was quoted as saying that time had run out and the best that can be hoped for was a presidential declaration outlining a future accord. It is understood that US and Israeli negotiators have already begun considering the content of a declaration which is likely to be a generalized statement and an account of the progress the two sides have made.

Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak had warned of wide ranging confrontation with Arab nations unless agreement was reached with the Palestinian. He had also warned his own people that they faced war if they chose the hawkish Ariel Sharon over him in the elections. On January 1, he had said that he wanted to achieve a “civilized divorce” with Palestinians by means of a peace agreement.

For a brief while it did appear that a peace agreement was on the cards. This was after Palestinian President Yasser Arafat had accepted with reservations President Clinton’s proposals. Mr. Clinton had proposed giving Palestinians control of the Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem and shared control of the Temple Mount, an area that contains sites sacred to Jews, Muslims and Christians. The plan also provides for Palestinian control over 95 per cent of the West Bank and hundred percent of the Gaza Strip. However, the Palestinians will be required to waive the right of return of refugees who fled Israel in the wake of the Jewish state in 1948.



Assessing Clinton’s proposals

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. According to analyst Chinmaya R. Gharekhan, 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 with huge margin 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.



Shimon Peres to meet Indian officials

Israeli leader Shimon Peres will be in India on Monday to brief the External Affairs and Home Minister on latest development in West Asia. According to officials, the second visit of Mr. Peres in quick time (the first one was in September 2000) is a reflection of India’s growing importance to both the Israelis and Palestinians. In private, Islamic world has often described India’s stand as “soft peddalling of Tel Aviv”. India has not yet come out with any harsh statement against Israel after the recent flare-up in which hundreds of Palestinians have been killed and injured in firing by Israeli troops. But New Delhi’s decision to hand over a Rs. 50 lakh fund to the Palestinians for medical and humanitarian help appears to have gone down well with the Arab leadership.

Mr. Peres may take the opportunity of asking Indian leaders to build up support for the peace package, because they enjoy the confidence of Yasser Arafat and other senior Palestinian leaders. Discussions may also take place on the forthcoming elections in Israel and the possibility of Barak’s return to power as well as the implications of a hardline Israeli leader becoming the next Prime Minister. Chances of the latter are considered more possible.