The signing of the Oslo Declaration of Principles (DOP) in
September 1993 signaled a major breakthrough in the deadlocked
Washington talks. Hopes and dreams blossomed when Rabin and Arafat
shook hands and exchanged tentative smiles on the White House
lawn.
Eighteen months later, matters look different. The negotiations
remain locked in a vicious circle. Palestinians are frustrated and
angry. Instead of the redeployment of Israeli forces in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and elections for the
autonomous council, they are witnessing an intensive campaign of
settlement expansion, confiscation of more lands, the tightening of
the closure on the OPT and the isolation of East Jerusalem from the
rest of the Palestinian territories, and severe economic
deterioration. This was exploited by the Islamic and radical
national opposition to gain sympa¬thy and support for violence
and suicide attacks against Israelis, as well as to undermine
Arafat; It's leadership and to incite the public against it.
On the other hand, Israelis feel more vulnerable than ever. Their
personal security is threatened, even in the heart of their own
cities, by the increas¬ing violence and suicide attacks that
have taken the lives of scores of Israelis. The peace process did
not bring them peace or security. Indeed, right-wing Israeli
demonstrators are carrying placards saying: "This peace is killing
us." The right-wing opposition is capitalizing on the deteriorating
internal security situation to discredit the Labor government and
to insti¬gate public opposition. The result is a unique
coalition between the Palestinian opposition and the Israeli
opposition, both of them trying to undermine the peace process and
to stop the peace talks. The victims are the majority, on both
sides, who have, until now, supported the peace talks and believed
they would bring solutions.
A Different Alternative
This tragic situation raises the question: what next? The peace
process has failed to prove its viability. Should the parties look
for another alternative? What can be done to ease tension and
isolate extremists on both sides?
After the Washington signing, Israelis and Palestinians were ready
to take risks for the sake of peace. But instead of empowering the
transfer of authorities to the Palestinian National Authority
(PNA), the talks about the changeover were bogged down in haggling
over details. Rabin, to please his opposition, gave his housing
minister a free hand to expand settlements in the West Bank.
It could be argued that the sympathies of Prime Minister Rabin lie
with the national-right wing camp. Also, by nature he is
suspicious, hesitant and indecisive. He lacks the political
boldness to make painful decisions that will help him along the
road to peace that still lies ahead. To free himself from the
timetable agreed upon in the DOP, he declared that "dates are not
sacred." He started dragging out the negotiations and cost the
peace process its momentum.
On the other hand, it took the PNA a long time to put its house in
order.
Handling the affairs of an "Authority" proved to be different and
much more difficult than handling the affairs of an organization.
Institutionalizing and democratizing the system made the PNA miss
several opportunities to project a positive image of itself and its
leadership in the face of the Israeli public opinion which is
subjected to a continued right-wing campaign slan¬dering the
PLO and even character assassinating Arafat and his
leadership.
The delay in signing the Cairo agreement slowed, perhaps even
froze, the whole process. The PNA was busy reorganizing itself,
while the Palestinian opposition was busy preparing itself for
violent attacks against the Israelis, intending to abort the peace
process and undermine the PNA.
Israeli policy in the OPT including settlement activities, closures
and the iso¬lation of Jerusalem, embarrassed the PNA and made
it difficult for it to engage in a confrontation with its
opposition. Though a fight against the vio¬lence of the
opposition had in actual fact been waged since the outset, it was
not forceful enough, and was accelerated only recently.
One-Sided Separation
And so, the political and economic deterioration continued. Rabin's
recent talk of "separation" adds fuel to the fire. There cannot be
a serious plan for disengaging the Palestinian entity from Israel,
as long as the separation is imposed on one side only. Israelis and
Israeli products can move freely across the Green Line. Israelis
can live in areas which are supposed to host the PNA in the near
future. They can still obtain more land in the OPT and build more
housing units. Even at checkpoints, there are special lanes for
their cars to keep them from having to wait in long lines, unlike
the Palestinians with their hard-to-obtain permits, wishing to
enter East Jerusalem or Israel over the Green Line.
It should be noted at this point that Arab Jerusalem, occupied in
1967, is part of the OPT. The Israeli decision and practice to
isolate it from the rest of the territories under the guise of
"separation" is becoming a nightmare for every Palestinian and the
source of a great deal of suffer¬ing. The closure of the city
has caused tremendous damage to the cul¬tural, economic, and
social life of Palestinians there, and the 200,000 Palestinians who
live in the villages and neighborhoods around it. They depend on
the city for their work and all aspects of their daily life, but
they need a permit to enter it as they are considered West Bank
resi¬dents. East Jerusalem, the centre of economic, cultural,
educational, reli¬gious and social life for the Palestinians,
has become a city suffocating under the heavy burden of the
continued siege imposed since March 1993, providing grounds for the
denunciation of the peace process and Arafat's leadership.
Practice has proved different from theory. Political separation is
wel¬come as long as it is along the Green Line (the 1948 truce
lines), and leaves Jerusalem, an integral part of the area occupied
in 1967, outside the siege. But Rabin would discriminate, giving
full freedom of movement to those Israelis living in the OPT and
turning the Arab-populated areas into a Soweto. Furthermore, this
"separation" and closure violate and block the implementation of
the agreements signed between Israel and the PLO, specifically, the
Cairo agreement and the Paris economic accords which stipulate free
reciprocal movement of goods and persons between Israel and the PNA
area. Such a discouraging start destroys any nascent confidence
between the two sides.
For the time being, the outlook is discouraging. Terror is
dictating the rhythm of developments in the peace process. The
Israeli public is show¬ing an increasing dissatisfaction with
Rabin's government, while the Prime Minister also has problems
within his government and party. Members of his cabinet are
addressing the angry people in the street and are adopting militant
stances critical of their own government. They are trying to
aban¬don the sinking ship in an attempt to salvage their
personal career in the coming elections at the expense of the
present government.
Arafat, on the other hand, has started to crack down on the violent
opposition on his side. A massive campaign of arrests, raids and
forcing opposition offices to close is earning increasing criticism
of the peace process from his own people. Some of his critics
charge that the peace process was a big mistake and accuse him of
having allowed himself to be manipulated into legitimizing the
Occupation and all of its oppressive practices.
Palestinian leaders who have free access to Arafat and have a
chance to debate with him, affirm that Arafat believed this to be a
historic oppor¬tunity for his people to establish their own
state. He understood very well that if his people failed to take
the matter into their own hands this time, there would never be
another chance. It is very obvious that Arafat is the owner of the
house and a strong leader. He is demonstrating seri¬ous
concern for the fate of the peace process, but he needs a positive
change on the part of Israel to prove to his people that he was not
wrong when he chose this course of political negotiations as a
means to achiev¬ing a peaceful settlement to the conflict. He
also needs it to justify the gradual harsh policy he has started to
adopt against the violence and ter¬rorism of his opposition
since he has, so far, failed to convince them to vent their
disagreement in more democratic ways.
Two Options
In this situation, there are two major options. Both look difficult
at the moment, but neither is impossible. The two options are based
on the belief that the peace process is irreversible. Implementing
parts of the DOP and the Cairo agreement, the creation of the PNA,
and its different organs, have produced a new reality, making it
impossible to set the clock back to pre-Oslo.
The first option rests on the admission that the delay in
addressing the delicate and difficult issues of Jerusalem and the
settlements did not make talks on the interim arrangements any
easier. On the contrary, the settle¬ments have proved to be a
major obstacle, before any agreement on the redeployment of the
Israeli forces in the OPT, and as such, they have pre¬vented
any progress in the negotiations over elections. Expanding many of
the existing settlements forced this issue on the agenda of the
peace talks. Continued Israeli efforts to alter the demographic
balance in Arab East Jerusalem, by adding Jewish neighborhoods to
the city, or by settling in the heart of Arab neighborhoods, has
also forced the issue of Jerusalem onto the negotiating table,
making it incumbent to address these two major problems without
further delay.
The inevitable conclusion is that the interim period must be
discarded. It is neither feasible nor necessary to continue talks
in this atmosphere. Talks should start now on the permanent status
of the OPT: all files must be opened, and all demands should be
placed on the table, so that a compre¬hensive settlement to
the conflict can be worked out.
Supporters of this option argue that it would save time, suffering
and destruction on both sides. It would help overcome the difficult
issues and remove the obstacles which prevent any real progress.
And it will thus restore public support for the peace
process.
The second option is to accelerate the talks on the interim
arrangement and at the same time, start parallel talks about the
permanent settlement. This will help save time and maybe contribute
to the success of the whole process. This option demands courageous
effort on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, and the maximum
possible level of self-restraint.
The Palestinian National Authority must guarantee, through
agreements with its opposition, or by force, that violent attacks
against Israelis stop/ or at least be reduced to a minimum because
they cause damage to the national interests of the Palestinian
people. If the PNA does its utmost, even should it not succeed in
totally stopping terrorist attacks, it will help Rabin's
gov¬ernment to take drastic steps to give impetus to the
process to move for¬ward, and to reduce violence and tension
on both sides.
Rabin's government must, first of all, freeze all settlement
activities in the OPT, including those in Arab East Jerusalem,
which is an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967; lift
the closure imposed on the OPT and open the gates of Arab East
Jerusalem to Palestinians, and start the imple¬mentation of
the second phase of the interim settlement as agreed upon in Oslo
and Cairo. Such steps will help to revive the economic situation,
which will have an overall positive impact on the peace process and
its chances for success.
Elections - a New Era
In this spirit and context, a sincere process of transferring power
and authorities to the PNA must start and should continue. The
infrastructure must be put in place for Palestinian elections to be
held very soon. Elections for the PNA council will mark the
beginning of a new era in the OPT. This type of progress will
restore hope to the Palestinian people, enhance the popularity of
the peace process, and isolate the extremists, preventing them from
jeopardizing the gains achieved through political
negotiations.
Neither party must forget, under any circumstance, that in the DOP,
they committed themselves to recognizing their legitimate, mutual
political rights and to striving to live in peaceful
coexistence.
They committed themselves too, to a historic reconciliation and to
achiev¬ing a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement.
No Israeli should be deceived into believing that such a peace can
be achieved without ful¬filling the Palestinian claim to
statehood, or without a just solution to the issue of Jerusalem,
respecting and fulfilling the Palestinian national and religious
rights in the city. This is the only guarantee to the stability and
durability of any peace settlement in the Middle East.
If Rabin opts for "peace," he might probably lose the 1996
elections, but he will achieve peace and go down in history as a
courageous peace¬maker. If he does not, he may well end up
losing both peace and the 1996 Israeli elections. If he keeps
wavering in between, Israelis, rather than voting for an ersatz
rightist government, such as Rabin's, might just go for a genuine
right-wing one.
It could also be argued that if Arafat does not help Rabin embrace
one of these two options, he may end up losing his partner in the
peace process and find himself facing a much tougher negotiator, a
Likud partner who may try desperately to reverse the process, or
transform it into a municipal autonomy.
All of this is based upon the assumption that the densely populated
Gaza Strip, with all its poverty and hopelessness, will not sink
into complete dis¬order. The overcrowded cities and the camps
of the Strip are inevitably a breeding ground for violence, terror
and despair, which will certainly expand across the border into
Israel.
Maybe this is a good reason for the leadership on the two sides not
to allow the peace process to fail. This is the only remaining
hope.