|
||||
Two weeks of intensive Israeli-Palestinian talks in the US Bolling airbase have failed to produce any visible and significant progress in bridging the well-known gaps between the Palestinian minimum demands and Israel's maximum readiness to concede on its illegal occupation of Palestinian land, on the existence and expansion of its illegal settlements, on its illegal occupation of occupied Arab Jerusalem, and on its continued denial of the Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees. Negotiations will resume next week in Eilat, and hopefully the "exchange of papers" which made the substance of the last round of talks will give birth to some negotiating dynamics. In the meantime, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat met with President Clinton to assess the progress, or lack of progress, of the negotiations. The only tangible result of all these efforts is the US commitment, which is no small development, to adopt a higher profile and play a more active direct role in the future stages of negotiations. This upgrading of the American role has been a constant Palestinian demand since the beginning of the peace-process. Close scrutiny of the latest comments by US officials ( See, in this issue, "US Assessment of the Peace Process" ) clearly show signs of this new American assertiveness, placed under the time-constraints of the domestic electoral calendar. Will it be enough to bring the Israeli government to engage in the famous, but still not formulated "painful decisions" it has been evoking ever since Ehud Barak's victory almost a year ago ? The Israeli Prime minister has recently hinted at such an eventuality when he insisted that Palestinians needed a state, not a protectorate, and that the Palestinian state needed territorial continuity, not "isolated dots on the map". The problem seems to be, however, that the Israeli government is primarily conducting the negotiations with the settlers, with the Knesseth, and with Israeli public opinion. It is only in the event that its own unilateral proposals go successfully through these barrages, that it informs the Palestinians of its intentions. That is how the negotiations on the Syrian track, dramatically anticipated by world media, have finally entered a period of deep-freeze. That may well be the recipee for failure on the Israeli-Palestinian track of the negotiations. In spite of these obstacles, the Palestinian leadership will spare no efforts to reach an agreement. Not only because peace is our strategic option, but also because we genuinely prefer an agreement, which would guarantee the basic rights of the Palestinian people while allowing a smooth transfer of powers and responsibilities, to a situation of legal vacuum in our relationship to our Israeli neighbors, and a de facto coexistence fraught with dangers of confrontation. Before this year is over, however, and whether or not we have reached an agreement on final status, we will proclaim our sovereignty on our occupied land, and declare Palestinian statehood on the territory occupied in 1967, with Holy Jerusalem as our capital. And we will continue, as a state, to demand the recognition of our rights and negotiate the modalities of our peaceful coexistence with all the states in the area, and first and foremost with Israel. But one should not underestimate the difficulties and the risks involved in such a situation. For the issues of land, border control, free circulation of citizens inside and out of the Palestinian territory, Refugee rights and Jerusalem cannot be indefinitely postponed. Lack of agreement on these crucial questions will leave some of the major root-causes of this century-old conflict unaltered, and will prevent the establishment of a real peace in the region as a whole. Israeli readiness to compromise on these issues and abandon the idea that superior military power will secure their claims to annexation is a key-condition for progress, while failure to do so is a sure avenue for relapse into conflict, strife and violence. For "windows of opportunity" do not remain forever opened, and the future generations will judge harshly those leaders who wait for them to close again. In this respect, the issue of Palestinian refugees is central. The expulsion of nearly one million Palestinians from their homes in 1948, which has been the living core of the conflict for half-a century, was the first act of the modern Palestinian tragedy. The official Israeli refusal to acknowledge responsibility does not only reflect demographic fears and financial-economic concerns. It also stems from a fundamental incapacity to look back at history without the self-magnifying, apologetic, partisan and propagandist stance which has inspired the Israeli official discourse so far. In spite of the remarkable efforts of many Israeli academics, scholars, journalists and public personalities to move towards a more balanced view, Israeli government officials, and Prime minister Barak in particular, continue to deny any responsibility in that tragedy, which does not bode well for the prospects of the "historical reconciliation between the two peoples" called for in the preamble of the September 1993 Declaration of Principles, the so-called "Oslo Accords". Acknowledgement of responsibility has become an essential part of peaceful relations between peoples once at war, or torn by conflict in the past. From South Africa to Europe, from Japan to Canada and Latin America, leaders with moral stature have apologized to the heirs of former victims of injustice. Last month the Belgian Prime minister asked for the forgiveness of the martyr people of Rwanda for the responsibility borne by his country in the events that led to the 1994 genocide, and the Pope, during his recent and historical visit to our Land, has insisted on this crucial need for forgiveness. Not too long ago, the present Israeli Prime minister even apologized to Oriental Jews in Israel for that which they endured in the course of their uneasy "absorption" into the newborn Israeli state. Only Palestinians, so far, have been denied the basic right to see their suffering recognized by its perpetrators. This is the great challenge of the present attempts at shaping peace out of conflict between Israel and the Palestinian and Arab peoples in general. Without taking this moral parameter into account, no peace agreement moulded by a momentary imbalance of material power can give birth to genuine reconciliation, and peace will not strike roots in the hearts of our children. For several years, the Palestinian people has given ample proof of its readiness to a "Peace of the Brave" which includes forgiveness of offences suffered. We are still waiting for a comparable psychological and cultural revolution among our Israeli neighbors and partners. 23.4.2000
|
||||
The Editor |
