December 15, 2003
MIDDLE EAST:
UN DECISION, GENEVA ACCORD SPARK 'UNILATERAL' OFFER
KEY FINDINGS
** Israeli dailies split
regarding Sharon's offer of "unilateral steps."
** Arab papers call the
UNGA vote to refer Israel's fence to the ICJ a "new opportunity."
** Supporters of the Geneva
Accord say it means "the region might have hope."
** Failure of Palestinian
cease-fire talks means PM Qurei cannot "serve as negotiator."
MAJOR THEMES
Unilateral moves are better than 'bloody utopianism'-- Israeli writers disagreed on unilateral Israeli
actions in the territories. One attacked
the "veiled unilateral proposal to annex" parts of the West Bank;
left-leaning Ha'aretz warned the U.S. will "demand more than what
Sharon will be offering." But
pluralist Maariv said "until an agreement is possible...no
alternative is preferable" and the conservative Jerusalem Post
backed a "temporary border...that leaves Israel holding about half of the
West Bank." Non-Israeli dailies
rejected a "tiny [Palestinian] state carved out by Israel's current
right-wing leadership"; an Egyptian daily warned Israel seeks to
"extend its unilateral political borders eastward under security
pretences."
Israel could become an international 'leper state'-- Germany's centrist Der Tagesspiegel
labeled criticism of the fence "justified," but held that "every
government has the right...to protect its citizens." Israel's pluralist Yediot Aharonot
opined, "The fence is indeed ugly...but it is also the best possible
political plan." Muslim writers
called the UN vote on Israel's "racist separation wall" a
"victory for Palestinian rights."
The UAE's pan-Arab Khaleej Times said Israel cannot reject
"the force of international law"; Lebanon's pro-Syria Ash-Sharq
alleged the fence was part of "an American-Israeli partnership to
subjugate Arabs."
The Geneva plan plays best outside the region-- Latin and African dailies backed the Geneva
proposal as an "antecedent for future negotiations" that could end
"the equilibrium of resentment and the see-saw of violence." Uganda's state-owned New Vision hoped
it could solve the region's "seemingly intractable problem." But hard-line Arab observers criticized the
"simplistic" plan. The
independent Jordan Times said the pact ignores the Palestinians'
"much-promised 'right of return'"; the West Bank's independent Al-Quds
dismissed the Accord as written by a "limited political and intellectual
elite."
The Cairo talks clarified a 'deep gap within Palestinian
unity'-- The "rejection of
the truce" by Palestinian radicals "left Qurei without a
mandate," said France's left-of-center Liberation. Some Arab papers lamented Palestinian
factionalism: Egypt's pro-government Al-Ahram
Weekly stressed "consolidating and maintaining national
unity." For other Arab dailies, the
crux of the problem was that Israel "is not interested in a truce or
cease-fire."
EDITOR: Ben Goldberg
EDITOR'S NOTE: This
analysis is based on 41 reports from 21 countries over 6 - 15 December
2003. Editorial excerpts from each
country are listed by the most recent date.
EUROPE
FRANCE: “Total Truce Falls
Through The Cracks In Cairo”
Jean-Luc Allouche noted in left-of-center Liberation
(12/8): “Prime Minister Qurei’s message
in Cairo that ‘a cease-fire could not come free,’ was obviously intended for
Israel.... Qorei was also pleased by the
fact that the Cairo meetings proved the Palestinians’ unity.... But in the end the rejection of the truce by
some of the most radical groups left Qorei without a mandate to serve as
negotiator with Israel, a decision that would have implied a tacit recognition
of the roadmap.... Egypt must now report
to Washington on its failed mediation in favor of a year-long truce.”
GERMANY: “Difficult
Eviction”
Center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine opined (12/10): “The recent threats by
religious-ideologically motivated militant settlers to resort to ‘war’ against
their own security forces in case settlements were to be dismantled, must be
taken seriously. Though these are at
most a few settlements built illegally since 2001. Israel, whose governing politicians
occasionally carry out their power struggles on the back of the settlers, must
accept the possible clashes if it is to remain credible. The Palestinians must renounce violence. Those among them who are ready for peace can
only garner support if settlements, deemed illegal, are dismantled--visibly to
everyone.”
“Drawing Borders”
Centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin held (12/10): “There are reasons why the UN General
Assembly continually deals with Israel instead of Chechnya or the Chinese
occupation of Tibet. It is because an
anti-Israeli group of Arab and Muslim countries calls the tune--supported by
neutral countries that don’t wish to be in the bad books of the oil
sheiks. Despite the obvious imbalance of
the resolution on the [Israeli] security fence, the referral to the
International Court of Justice faces Israeli with a dilemma. If the court in The Hague considers the fence
to be a unilateral drawing of borders, the project will be illegal. However, to come to such a ruling would be
absurd. Future Israeli governments will
decide on their own whether they want to relinquish the territories on their
side of the fence for peace with the Palestinians. Until this happens, every government has the
right and duty to protect its citizens.
Criticism of the course of the fence, which locks up tens of thousands
of Palestinians in a no-man’s land between Israel and the West Bank, is
justified. However, there isn’t an
internationally vested right to blow up Israeli civilians. This at least should be clarified in The
Hague.”
ITALY: "The Path To
Peace Goes Through Rome"
An editorial in Rome's center-left daily Il Messaggero read
(12/11): "'The summit between
Israeli PM Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Premier Abu Ala will be held very
soon.' The announcement was made last night in Rome by the Israeli and
Palestianian Foreign Ministers, respectively Silvan Shalom and Nabil Shaath, at
the end of a meeting at the Farnesina. Shalom reiterated that the meeting must
take place without preconditions, but he also added that he came to Rome with
the objective to 'look toward the future' and not to mourn over the past.... The meeting took place on the margins of the
Palestine Donor Conference which began yesterday in Rome. From the conference,
appeals were launched to Israel and Palestinians to apply the 'road map' and to
guarantee donors security to work in the occupied Territories. The meeting,
which was attended by about one hundred delegates representing 14 donor
countries and international organizations was opened by Italian Foreign
Minister Franco Frattini."
"The UN Assembly--Hague Court To Decide on Israeli
Fence"
Aldo Baquis commented in centrist, influential La Stampa
(12/9): "With 90 votes in favor, 8
against, and 74 abstentions, the UN General Assembly yesterday accepted the
Palestinian request that the International Court of Justice in the Hague
establish if Israel's erection of the fence in the West Bank, along the lines
of demarcation which were in effect until 1967, is compatible with
international law.... Israel's right to
self-defense is not even denied by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.... A modest consolation for Jerusalem came from
a mass abstention from European countries. But the maneuver which was
successfully orchestrated by Palestinian diplomacy is already causing
apprehension among Israeli leaders."
"The Israeli Wall 'Ascribed' To The Hague"
Gian Micalessin judged in pro-government, leading center-right Il
Giornale (12/9): "Does it serve
to steal their lands and to 'transform them into new slaves' as some
Palestinians maintain, or is it indispensable to the defense of Israeli
citizens from terrorism, as the Sharon government has been saying for months?
Following months of controversy, the judges of the International Court in The
Hague will express their opinion. The UN General Assembly decided yesterday
with 90 votes in favor, 8 against and 74 abstentions to hand over the decision
regarding the thorny issue on the legitimacy of the Israeli wall to the
International Court of Justice.... The
Assembly's decision...was greatly anticipated. But the EU's lump abstention,
decided on the initiative of the Italian presidency, partly eased the political
weight of the vote.... Although the EU
expressed preoccupation and regret for Israel's refusal to suspend the
construction of the fence, it [the EU] motivated the abstention by defining the
handover of the issue to the International Justice Court as
inappropriate.... The Court's ruling,
which will come no sooner than in a year's time, will not be binding and it
will be limited to verifying if the fence is in line with international
legislation."
RUSSIA: "Russia
Abstains For Reasons Other Than Europe's"
Leonid Gankin wrote in business-oriented Kommersant
(12/10): "It has been pointed out
in Jerusalem that as shown by the vote, the United States' and Europe's chief
concern is, rather than putting pressure on Israel alone, is to contribute to a
peaceful settlement. Russia's
motivation is different. The Russian
envoy to the UN, Sergey Lavrov, says that an appeal to the Hague, instead of
helping make Israel stop building the wall, will only cause a delay."
HUNGARY: “ Road Map And
Destination”
Andras Schweitzer argued in prestigious Hungarian-language
business/political weekly HVG (12/11):
“The Geneva Accord proves that the line that 'there isn’t a partner for
peace’ repeated so notoriously by both sides [Israel and Palestine] is
false. The Accord is the evidence that
an agreement that clarifies the most crucial details of the [Mideast] conflict
can indeed be drafted. And it would be
hard anyway to conclude a compromise very different from the recent one. A Palestine-Israeli peace agreement, if any
will be reached at all, is expected to be based on the current Geneva Accord,
regardless whether it becomes sealed within one or five, or fifty years. The real guarantee for peace would be though
if not the United States alone, but the members of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference, which was established in 1969 with the purpose of
‘liberating’ Jerusalem, accepted the Accord as well.”
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "A Matter Of
Geography"
Editor-in-Chief Amnon Dankner maintained in popular, pluralist Maariv
(12/12): "This week, the idea of a
unilateral withdrawal caught flak from both the Right and the Left. The Left argued that Israel stood to gain
nothing from this. After all, the world
wouldn't welcome the unilateral move.
Once again tremendous pressure would be applied on Israel. The Palestinian areas would become an enclave
between Israel and an Israeli-controlled zone in the Jordan Valley, with no
stable regime and no means of sustaining themselves. Pressure of anti-Israeli terrorism would
increase. This is quite true. But the question is whether there is an
alternative.... What is important is
that the unilateral pullout would neither represent nor look like a definitive
action that would determine the final border, but an interim step until an agreement
is possible. Thus, Israel would be
relieved from that pressure, and would demonstrate it integrity to the
world. It is truly important--not only
from the image point of view--for Israel to do everything it can to reach such
an agreement. But in the absence of an
agreement and as continued occupation has no value, Israel is in a condition in
which it must make a historic decision because no alternative is
preferable."
"In Peace's Absence"
Conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (12/12): "We do not particularly like [Vice Prime
Minister Ehud] Olmert's defeatist attitude on the questions of demography and
of regime change on the Palestinian side....
Yet once demographic trends and the current Palestinian leadership are
taken as givens, the question is whether any form of unilateral action can
improve Israel's position.... The
withdrawal from Lebanon was perceived as a pure retreat, regardless of Israel's
claims that it had strengthened its strategic position. That retreat helped lead the Palestinians to
embrace the 'Hizbullah model,' with devastating consequences for Israel. If we define a temporary border with a
security fence that leaves Israel holding about half of the West Bank, the effect
would be different. The Palestinians
would be faced with a choice: make peace in exchange for a better deal than
that marked by the security fence, or continue to fight and watch as the Green
Line disappears as a potential border.
Such a strategy would at least force the Palestinians to pay a price for
their refusal to make real peace with Israel. Not ideal, we know, but such a
path could prove much better than the bloody utopianism of the last
decade."
"Don't Make The Americans Laugh"
Chief Economic Editor and senior columnist Sever Plotker stated in
mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (12/11): "Senior officials in the U.S.
Administration in Washington view a unilateral withdrawal, such as the one
raised in the Sharon government, as an attempt to evade the implementation of
the road map, and even worse: a veiled unilateral proposal to annex a large
percentage of West Bank territory.... Even when Israel does withdraw from
somewhere, they say, it immediately takes it back.... Israel should learn from
the matter of the fence, they say here.... The Americans, from Bush to Powell,
from Wolfowitz to Clinton, recommend to us that we be realistic. As one senior official said: 'For the
withdrawal to resolve anything, it has to be by agreement.' And if it is agreed on, it is no longer unilateral. The imperialistic dream of a 'unilateral
solution' that Israel can enforce on the Palestinians--relating to them as if
they don't exist--cannot be implemented, warns Washington. It even diverts the sides from seeking
practical arrangements on the ground and thus also infuriates the
administration. In short, American
public opinion, except for the fringes, is a lot closer to the spirit of the
'Geneva understandings' than to the spirit of 'unilateral withdrawal.'"
"The Fence Will Bring The Political Solution"
Guy Bechor commented in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot
Aharonot (12/11): "If there is
no possibility at the moment of reaching an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, a
forced solution of a physical separation is the next best thing. It has been shown in Cyprus that a fence
eventually leads to a political solution, and that is what will happen here
too. The fence will lead to voluntary
Jewish movement inside, with the government's encouragement, in a long term
process that will not be perceived as a hasty flight nor as an unfair
self-transfer; it will decrease the clashes; it will provide demographic and
cultural defense; it will put a final end to the idea of greater Israel and
greater Palestine. In the absence of
cultural tools for the Israelis and Palestinians to use to talk and reach
agreements, when they conduct a dialogue of the deaf with the same national
symbols such as the Temple Mount with no possibility of resolving this in our
generation, the security fence is indeed ugly and creates a wound, but it is
also the best possible political plan."
"The Prime Minister's Dance Of The Seven Veils"
Aluf Benn wrote in independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz
(12/10): "The Prime Minister, now
under pressure from many directions, is seeking a way out.... The fact is that all his hints and trial
balloons of the past few weeks have not stopped his collapse in the polls. Meanwhile, he hears a lack of enthusiasm from
the Americans about his plans for a unilateral step. President George W. Bush is committed to the
road map, and will only give it up if he is convinced Israel has tried every
avenue to get it implemented....
Presumably, the steps Sharon is considering taking will be judged on
their own merit.... When the unilateral
steps come up for discussion, Washington will in any case demand more than what
Sharon will be offering to do and that will only intensify the Prime Minister's
political problems. He's trying to
maintain his current coalition, and responds to threats from the right that
they'll quit by threatening to replace them with the Labor Party. But following through on the threats is not
so easy because all the major portfolios in the government are taken.... That's one of the reasons it is difficult to
understand why Sharon is now fighting such a complex multi-front battle, if it
is only for limited unilateral steps."
"Olmert-Type Cluster Bomb"
Eytan Haber declared in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot
Aharonot (12/10): "The
statement by Industry and Trade Minister Ehud Olmert regarding willingness for
a unilateral withdrawal from the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza ['the
territories'] can be defined as a 'cluster bomb' in the diplomatic and
political spheres.... The fragments of
his statement are reaching far from the cabinet table and the Likud Central
Committee. One of the victims of this
important statement could be the Labor Party.... Olmert's statement appears to reflect the
prevalent opinion today among most of the Israeli public. The Likud has, therefore, moved from the
right to the center of the political map, and with Olmert's aid, has even
situated itself slightly left of center, where the Labor Party was always
located. Olmert, Sharon and the others
know full well that political and electoral victory lie in the center of the
political arena--which commands the support of a majority of the people. In this situation, the Labor Party needs to
decide what is happening to it: will it stay put in the center, and fight over
the same slot, or move to the left, towards the state of a Lilliputian party,
perhaps vindicated once again, but tiny.
The elections are not yet approaching, but if the two large parties
continue to occupy the same slot, then we will probably soon see the Labor
Party joining the government while the National Religious Party and National
Union leave it. The Likud and Labor
Party will then constitute one large centrist camp. Together, they will, perhaps, make the most
difficult decisions in Israeli history. A pipe dream? Not really."
"An Indefensible Resolution"
Conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized
(12/10): "The [UN] General Assembly
demonstrated its bias when it voted by a whopping 90-8 majority to refer the
security fence to the International Court of Justice. Israel, desperately resorting to the most
non-violent defensive measure against relentless terror, is thereby put on
trial, while mass-murderers cast themselves in the role of the outraged
plaintiffs.... The UN's decision to
declare the fence illegal was on par with it's notorious and ultimately
repealed 'Zionism equals racism' resolution.
For if Israel, despite the Geneva Convention's explicit permission
granted to build fortifications, is not allowed to even passively defend its
children, then it is being denied the right of self-defense.... Israel will never acquiesce to such a
verdict, which has sullied the body in which it passed and those who did not oppose
it more than it does this nation."
"The Operation Was Successful, But The Patient Died"
Ben Caspit maintained in popular, pluralist Maariv
(12/9): "The fence, instead of
imposing a siege on the Palestinians and on terror, imposes a siege on us
[Israel]. Israel is becoming, slowly but surely, a leper state. The White House is angry, Europe is
furious. The sanctions are already on
the way. There were some in Jerusalem
Monday who noted the great success in getting almost 80 countries to abstain
and eight (!!) to oppose the resolution to refer the matter of the fence to the
International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Hooray for the impressive victory.
The thing is that the operation succeeded, but the patient died.... The significance of the resolution to refer
the fence to The Hague is that if we lose the battle there, the matter will be
referred to the Security Council prior to sanctions being imposed on
Israel. In a single move, without
noticing, we are joining North Korea, Iraq, Libya, and perhaps Syria as
well.... This so-vital separation fence
has become a hump that is gradually threatening too many vital interests of
Israel. Thus we managed, with exceptional sloppiness, to get ourselves into one
of the more embarrassing complications: a sort of impossible modern catch-22,
from which we cannot come out good, if at all.
Stopping to build the fence is impossible. Changing its route in the current political
situation is almost impossible.
Continuing to build it will cost us.
Not only billions...that it will cost thanks to its twisting route and
its enclaves and its salients, but mainly because it is turning us into the
most updated version of South Africa."
WEST BANK: "The Battle On Both Sides Of The Wall"
Rajab Abu Siriyeh commented in independent Al-Ayyam
(12/12): “The [Israeli security] wall
now forms a focal point of the political conflict. The Israeli right wing’s success in building
this wall will basically block any political solution, including the PLO agenda
that emphasizes the establishment of a Palestinian state and the right of
return. In the meantime, if the
Palestinian resistance succeeds in halting the construction of this wall in an
expeditious manner, it will cause the Sharon government to fall, leading to an
internal political revolt in Israel, the conclusion of which will allow the
Israeli left to govern. This will
encourage a fresh start between Israel and the Palestinian leadership as a
political partner with the shared objective of reaching a two-state solution.”
"Why Is It Impossible To Give Up The Right Of Return?"
Mohammad Nobani opined in independent Al-Quds (12/12): “Israel’s request for membership in the UN
was conditioned on Israel’s pledge to abide by two additional requirements, in
addition to the basic requirement stipulating that all member states must be
peace-loving. Those two other
requirements are: withdrawal from Palestinian land according to the partition
resolution and taking necessary procedures to allow Palestinian refugees to
return to their homeland. But Israel has
failed to act upon these conditions and, instead, has turned a blind eye to all
UN resolutions since 1948. Palestinians,
as a result, feel that they have no choice but to safeguard these rights and to
hold fast to them for as long as it takes.”
"What's Behind All These Initiatives?"
Naji Sharab asked in independent Al-Quds (12/11): “It is both interesting and dubious that we
have recently being bombarded with all these unofficial initiatives, so much so
that the settlers themselves have presented their own.... But what is behind these initiatives? How do they differ from the official
initiatives such as the Roadmap? But
most importantly, what do these numerous initiatives mean and are they helpful
tools in resolving such a complicated, difficult and perpetual conflict? And what is the common ground between these
unofficial initiative and the official ones?.... To begin with, these initiatives present the
view of a limited political and intellectual elite, and thus reflect the
viewpoint of a group of very few people.
However, such initiatives draw their importance from the prominent
status of their drafters within their social and academic communities.
Furthermore, these initiatives represent a major intellectual change in essence
and content. Lastly, these initiatives
are mostly based on practical ideas away from the generalization and vagueness
that usually concentrate on denying each of the two sides’ demands.”
“The Resistance Is Legitimate...And The National Interest
Prevails”
Muhannad Abdul Hamid wrote in independent Al-Ayyam
(12/9): “In its famous report, the
international Mitchell Committee reached the conclusion that Palestinian
violence can never end as long as settlement activities on Palestinian land
continue. The problem now is that the
third party [America] does not want to intervene and does not allow others,
including the Europeans, the UN and Russia, to intervene either. And even if such U.S. involvement were to
take place, it would only be in favor of Israel and Sharon.... The most positive pressure placed by the U.S.
on Sharon was a deduction from the American loan guarantees to Israel equaling
the cost of constructing the separation wall, while the utmost pressure the
Europeans have imposed on Israel was a boycott of settlement products.... We need to activate the international and
Arab position to place more pressure on Israel and to encourage a new Israeli
current supporting an end to occupation.”
"If Only An Agreement Had Been Reached"
Independent Al-Quds editorialized (12/9): “It is true that the entire world now
realizes that Israel is not interested in a truce or a cease-fire.... Nonetheless, a Palestinian joint statement of
understanding could have strengthened the Palestinian position and helped
determine the next steps in moving toward the upcoming stage.... It definitely would have been better if an
agreement, regardless of its structure and whether it was a temporary or
long-lasting cease-fire, had been reached instead of holding fruitless talks
that ended in failure.”
EGYPT: "Unilateral
Unity"
Azmi Bishara wrote in the official English-language Al-Ahram
Weekly (12/11): "Because of
political and media hype the public expected the meetings of Palestinian
factions in Cairo to produce a ceasefire....
Had the dialogue been about a genuine ceasefire it should have been
between the Palestinians and the Israeli government and have broached such
matters as the timeframe and international monitoring. This is what happens in
ceasefire talks.... So long as Israel is
not a partner in the 'dialogue' over the ceasefire such a ceasefire has no
chance of holding. No one is negotiating
with Israel over a ceasefire: the latter does not want one and is boasting of
the fact. This boasting has not,
however, stopped Israel from commenting on the outcome of the Cairo talks or
from linking the failure of the dialogue with the building of the apartheid
wall.... The Palestinians must agree on
the best methods of struggle and ditch the less suitable.... The Palestinians cannot hope for a just
solution of their cause anytime soon. Sharon knows that. This is why he is
calling on the Palestinians to accept a long-term transitional settlement while
threatening them with unilateral moves, including the wall. Both Sharon and his
deputy, Ehud Olmert, are in favour of unilateral action towards the
Palestinians.... Since an acceptable
settlement cannot to be expected under Sharon the Palestinians should focus on
consolidating and maintaining national unity.... To achieve these goals the Palestinians need
a unified national command. This command should encompass the PLO as well as
other factions.... Those who think that
the peace option exists and that the Palestinians are divided into two camps,
one for peace and another for war, are not only deluded, they are actively
courting civil war.... The aim of the
dialogue should be to consolidate national unity.... Without the creation of a unified national
command any talk of a unified strategy is in vain. The Palestinians have to
prioritise their goals and rally their resources for the major battles ahead,
chiefly over the apartheid wall. The wall is the worst thing that can happen to
the Palestinians, worse even than the dismemberment of Jerusalem. This wall has
to be confronted through national unity....
Some think of the wall as a political boundary running close to the
green line. In reality the wall gives Israel the chance to extend its
unilateral political borders eastward under security pretences. The unilateral
borders suggested by Sharon and Olmert are worse than the wall itself. By the
same token, Israel may later build an eastern wall running along the Jordan
valley--just one example of the racist unilateral measures lying in
store.... Some are encouraged by the
recent proliferation of peace initiatives, including that of Deputy Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert. But Olmert's proposals...are the antithesis of a peace
initiative. Olmert's main premise is that peace initiatives are futile, a
negotiated agreement is out of reach, and therefore Israel must take unilateral
measures. Dialogue and Palestinian national unity are in essence unilateral
steps, needed to counter those of Israel."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Cairo Importance"
Abha-based moderate Al-Watan stated (12/12): "We must cite the importance of the Cairo
talks that took place last week among Palestinian factions.... Overall the discussions were a Palestinian
victory, despite the failure to reach a common action plan. It was a victory because it was a genuine
attempt on behalf of the Palestinians to facilitate a solution of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The fact
that the inter-Palestinian talks did not produce a tangible, common plan should
not frustrate these factions to the point that they give up on the idea of
future dialogue.”
JORDAN: "The Devil In
The Details?"
George Hishmeh noted in elite, independent English-langugae Jordan
Times (12/12): "Yasser Abed Rabbo and Yossi Beilin must
be very happy with their achievements in Washington, where leading politicians
and former Cabinet officials, including former President Bill Clinton, voiced
their blessings of their 'model' for Palestinian-Israeli peace.... There is no doubt that they tossed a big
stone into the pool of ideas that have yet to yield a decent settlement,
primarily acceptable to the Palestinians who lost their homeland some 50 years
ago when, at the end of World War II, thousands of Jewish refugees running away
from European persecution descended upon the Holy Land. The Israeli leadership indignant about U.S.
'meddling,' for receiving the two negotiators at the State Department, felt
compelled to sound forthcoming. Ehud
Olmert, the deputy Israeli prime minister and point man for Ariel Sharon, the
prime minister, touted the merits of a 'unilateral' withdrawal from some parts
of the Israel-occupied Palestinian territories.
It would nip in the bud talk about a one-state solution.... Egypt and Jordan, the two Arab countries that
signed a peace agreement with Israel, endorsed the exercise which,
nevertheless, generated some hostile Palestinian demonstrations and extensive
debate in the Arab world.... What was
most interesting to watch was the eagerness of the American media to host Abed
Rabbo and Beilin on their talk shows, as well as the readiness of some
congressmen to introduce resolutions urging Bush to endorse the Geneva
accord. All this seemed to underline
Americans' frustration with their government's inability, over the years, to
negotiate a clear-cut and fair settlement plan.... But the 'historical compromise' was not clear
to all. Beilin, who is cognizant of
growing Israeli fears of a unitary state in historic Palestine, where “a
minority of Jews” will end dominating in years to come “a majority of Arabs”,
explained the compromise in this fashion:..."The formula is that sovereignty
is handed over to the Palestinians on the Temple Mount (Haram Al Sharif) and
sovereignty about the admission of refugees (to Israel) is handed over to
Israel. This simplistic trade-off will
not sit well with many Palestinians, despite the promised dismantling of most
Israeli settlements (except those surrounding Jerusalem), the vision of
Jerusalem as the capital of two states, and a border that runs almost along the
June 1967 armistice lines. The devil may
lie in the details of the annexes that have yet to be finalised by the two
groups that were not really authorised to undertake this monumental
task.... This is not likely to fly with
Palestinians who need to assert their much-promised “right of return.”
“The Smart Move That Angers America Even Before Israel”
Mohammad Amayreh observed in center-left, influential
Arabic-language Al-Dustour (12/10):
“No doubt, referring the issue of Israel’s separation wall between
Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 and the rest of the Palestinian territories
to the international court of justice in the Hague is a smart move to be hailed
and supported.... Israel’s anger at such
a move might just be justifiable, since it is the party directly concerned and
affected, but America’s remarks opposing this move are completely out of place
and needlessly reflect complete bias in favor of Israel. The United States gets itself involved in
such issues without considering their sensitivity and the potential for rousing
Arab enmity towards U.S. policy, despite the fact that the U.S. administration
continues to pose the nagging question: why do they hate us? Washington has been biased in favor of the
Zionist entity ever since its establishment on the land of Palestine and has
continued to provide all support and assistance.... The tragic thing about this is that the
United States believes that this should not prevent anything and that the Arabs
should accept it and the Palestinians should bless it, and that if they do not,
then it is terrorism. The Arabs and the
Palestinians found no protection in the Security Council from the Israeli
arrogance and hegemony. All the Security
Council resolutions that condemn Israel came face to face with the American
veto. Their only refuge, therefore, is
the General Assembly where they enjoy an obvious supporting majority for their
issues, particularly the Palestinian issue....
We welcome this move and we believe it is a new opportunity for the
Arabs and the Palestinians to regain some of their rights, that is if the
higher court of justice’s rulings are binding for Israel.”
"The Failure Of The Round Of Dialogue In Cairo"
Jamil Al-Nimri stated in independent mass-appeal Arabic-language Al-Arab
Al-Yawm (12/8): "The dialogue
[between Palestinian groups] sought to find a formula in which each party would
be able to gain what it needs, but agreement was elusive at the present round. The missing link was that at which each party
could have pointed to a political gain, or a reasonable interest [in the
cease-fire]. This point of convergence
could not be reached because the Egyptian mediator could not present at the
table any form of Israeli commitment.”
LEBANON: "U.S. And EU
Should Impose A Solution On Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"
The moderate English-language Daily Star editorialized
(12/11): "Representatives of donor
countries meeting in Rome are clearly losing patience with both sides in the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict.... Neither
camp has accepted the futility of seeking a solution through violence, and
neither side’s leaders have had the maturity to articulate a vision of peace
predicated on a commitment that there is, in fact, no going back.... All the while, blood continues to
flow.... Donors are justifiably
concerned that any money they pour into the area will go up in smoke as the two
sides keep fighting. There is a depressingly fresh precedent for this fear:
Virtually everything the Palestinian Authority built with aid funds received
after the signing of the Oslo Accords has been destroyed. Israeli tanks and bulldozers have ruined all
manner of infrastructure.... The failed
policies that have led to this impasse are not solely Israeli and Palestinian:
The international community has also been remiss for not demanding that the
principals come to their senses. It is not as though powerful actors like the
United States and the European Union lack the leverage to impose a
solution.... The peace process has
stalled, but the outlines of a deal are already widely known. All that remains is for a suitable
combination of outside players to step in.
Draw an equitable map, divvy up Jerusalem, and implement fair but practical
mechanisms for refugees and settlers.
Put NATO troops between the two sides until they grow up enough to live
with each other and pump aid money in to defeat the root causes of
extremism: poverty and repression.
Anyone who thinks such an approach would be condescending should worry less about
the pride of the two peoples and more about the health of their children. Imposing a just end to the
Palestinian-Israeli feud would do far more than just keep them from
slaughtering one another. It would also work wonders for the Jewish state’s
disputes with other Arab countries and help reduce the threat of terrorism by
removing a key contributor to militancy across the Islamic world. Whatever it
might cost to force peace on Israel and Palestine would be a fabulous
investment for the West that would pay for itself many times over in a very few
years. No one expects that Ariel Sharon
and Yasser Arafat can do this on their own....
Their minds cannot be changed, so
their complaints and those of like-minded figures will have to be tolerated
until enough of their respective electorates come to understand just how badly
they have been led. Then the dinosaurs will fade into memory and, hopefully, be
forgotten altogether."
"The Tangled Relation Between Palestine And Iraq"
Awni Kaaki asserted in in pro-Syria Ash-Sharq (12/10): "There is a direct relation between the
racist separation wall in the West Bank and events in Iraq, because they
indicate a war with one target, embodied in an American Israeli partnership to
subjugate Arabs and steal their will, wealth and rights.... Basically Israel was established on the
Palestinian land to stop any communication between the Eastern Arabs and the
Western Arabs. And the Americans have
been supporting it with all means in order to paralyze Arab abilities for
confrontation. All that is well known
and needs no analysis or examination....
What is new is that America with the ultimate power it owns in the world
has failed to protect its soldiers from the strikes the Iraqi resistance has
been dealing it...in the same way the Israeli army failed to protect its troops
in South Lebanon leading it to withdraw....
America will reach a stage and a time in which it would find itself
obliged to withdraw from Iraq. The same
thing applies in Gaza and the
West Bank.... We can see
that the scene in Palestine has extensions with the scene in Iraq. The resistance in both regions has become
strongly tied up despite the fact that there was no connection or coordination
between them. The strikes against the
American forces in Iraq will have their painful rebounds on the Israeli
situation and vice versa."
SYRIA: "The Separation
Wall before and after Ceasefire"
Ahmad Hamadeh said in government-owned Al-Thawra
(12/11): "Israel has added a new
bogus pretext to its list of false pretexts to justify continuing to build the
racist wall; namely, that the Palestinian factions who met recently in Cairo
have not reached a ceasefire with Israel. More than one Israeli official has
reiterated this silly excuse.... Although
the UNGA passed a resolution to refer the issue of the separation wall to the
International Court of Justice....
Israel persists in its aggressive position and has started to block UN
efforts to transfer the case to the International ICJ to avoid
criticism.... Washington has objected to
the UNGA resolution and has exerted all possible at the UN to deflect attention
on Israel and not shift the issue to ICJ whose rulings have more judicial power
than those of the UNGA. This was not the
only time the US has supported Israel. From the beginning, Washington has
expressed understanding of Israel's alleged security needs used to justify
construction of the wall. Only infrequently has any of US administration
official commented on the illegality of this wall nor rise up to demand
stopping its construction."
"Repeating The Policy Of Blackmail"
Ahmad Dawa wrote in government-owed Al-Thawra (12/10): "Referring the issue of the Israeli wall
to the International Court of Justice is a victory for Palestinian rights.
Awareness of an Israeli reaction should continue. Israel's denunciation of the
UNGA resolution and its readiness to justify constructing the wall is a prelude
to further Israeli escalation and more falsification of facts."
TUNISIA: "When The
U.S. Veto Is Absent"
Senior editor Mohsen Zoghlami declared in independent
Arabic-language As-Sabah (12/10):
"It seems that the UN decision to refer the issue of the Israeli
wall to the international court is significant and also reflects the political
quagmire in which the Israelis are trapped....
It also showed the real position of the Israeli government in the
absence of a veto or political support that some powerful international
countries provide it in the Security Council."
"The Dangers Of The Division"
Senior Editor Hajer Jeridi opined in independent French-language Le
Temps (12/9): "Attempts to
solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict follow one after the other, but none has
so far reached its ultimate purpose....
It is true that the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and
the unjust and aggressive practice of the Hebrew State have opened up a deep
gap within Palestinian unity that is difficult to overcome. Isn't it time for
the Palestinians to forget about their differences and to rise up strongly
against the barbarism of the Israeli colonizer, which is still considered as
invincible? Peace can not be achieved
through concessions and sacrifices alone; and Palestinians, who paid the bill
with their lives while facing the Israeli oppression, know better than that.
The current stubbornness is unproductive and the way that the Palestinians are
leading their struggle has not led to any improvement.... The situation deserves to be handled with a
lot of intelligence and diplomacy on the Palestinian side. It is not in the
interest of the Palestinians to offer Sharon the opportunity to justify his
unjust actions in pretending that the Palestinians pose a threat.... Time is difficult on the Palestinians, but
their evolution in this conflict and the knowledge that they have acquired from
the Israeli tactics should have enabled them to deal with their opponents with
wisdom and efficiency. If we have a real will to achieve peace and to
reestablish the freedom of the people, we could make the most difficult and
painful concessions in order to reach our objective."
UAE: "Isolated By Own
Fence"
Pan-Arab Sharjah-based Khaleej Times
declared (12/10): "Israel has
reached a corner on the issue of the racial separation fence, which the
government of Ariel Sharon has insisted on constructing regardless of
international objections, which predictably came from most countries in the
world. With the UN General Assembly decision to refer the matter to the
International Court of Justice in the Hague, the Jewish state has come to face
a new kind of challenge. This time, it
cannot fight back with diplomatic and political trickery, for it is up against
the force of international law and indeed the UN Charter.... Israel, under no circumstances, can claim
that looking into the issue of the so-called security fence does not fall under
the purview of the International Court of Justice.... The question before the International Law
Court in the Hague is simple: What, by virtue of law, are the repercussions of
the 'security fence', which the Jewish state's forces are constructing on
occupied Palestinian lands, including inside the eastern Holy City of Jerusalem
and surrounding areas? What will Israel do now? Will it go ahead with
challenging the UN, especially after the UN secretary-general had said that the
fence is obviously a violation of the Palestinian rights, and is built on
internationally recognised Palestinian land? I believe the Sharon government
will find the going tough in the face of growing domestic and international
frustration with its policies. The outcome of European opinion surveys has
already highlighted the negative impact on the Continent of Israel's militarist
and expansionist policies. Sharon can hardly afford to alienate international
public opinion further."
"Under Siege"
Pan-Arab Sharjah-based Khaleej Times held
(12/8): "Is Ariel Sharon finally
recognising the inevitability of a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, underpinned by a withdrawal of Israeli forces and
settlers from the occupied territories and the establishment of an independent
Palestinian state? It is too early to
tell, but the trial balloon floated by his deputy, Trade Minister Ehud Olmert,
does signify an ongoing debate within the Likud-led rightwing coalition
government.... He did not rule out
either the possibility of evacuation of some 50,000 settlers from the West Bank
and Gaza Strip or the acceptance of a Palestinian state if only to 'preserve
Israel's Jewish and democratic character.'
Whether Olmert was sounding off his own views or those of his boss, is
not quite clear, but it is highly unlikely that the Trade minister was speaking
on the record without Sharon's permission.
With a number of private peace proposals, notably the Geneva Initiative,
stealing the limelight, a unilateral Palestinian ceasefire in the offing, and
opinion polls showing deep public support for a resolution, the Israeli
government was in serious danger of being all but marginalised. However, what
seems to have done the trick is the pressure brought to bear on Sharon by the
Bush administration to stop being the stumbling block to peace negotiations.
Given the displeasure expressed by Washington over the building of the
so-called security fence and the expansion of Jewish colonies in occupied
territories, it was perhaps a matter of time before Sharon started to budge
from his hard line position."
EAST ASIA
INDONESIA: “How Bush Could
Recover Muslims’ Support”
Jusuf Wanandi wrote in the English-language
moderate Jakarta Post (12/15):
"Many Muslims thought that President Bush was not pushing strong
enough for the roadmap. That message was conveyed to him by the Indonesian
Muslim leaders that met with him in Bali several months ago. The message seemed
to have some impact. If President Bush can move the roadmap in cooperation with
the other three sponsors, albeit step by step because it is such a complex
problem, then support for him among Muslims worldwide could be somewhat
restored. In the meantime, Indonesians--be they Muslims or not--should support
the roadmap and the Geneva accord to achieve a peaceful resolution to a
conflict that is deep seated and debilitating to all.”
AFRICA
SOUTH AFRICA: "Geneva
Accord Best Chance For Long-term Peace"
The liberal Sunday Independent commented (12/8): "[T]here is reason for caution if the
Geneva accord is not to join other peace initiatives on the scrap heap of
Mideast peace plans. The impact of the
past three years of violence is that the concept of a two-state
solution...might have been irreversibly damaged.... Movement towards a binational state--even if
it is 50 years away--could represent Israel's only option for survival in the
long term. It would strengthen moderates
on both sides, recognized the geographic and economic realities of the region
and offer Israeli Jews and Arabs the prospect of being able to live in a plural
state with shared national symbols. It
could also unlock the deadlock over the necessary process of defining two
separate entities before building bridges between them."
UGANDA: "New Hope For
Middle East?"
Uganda’s state-owned New Vision opined (12/6): "Even a nodding acquaintance with the
real world would suggest we should not get over-excited with the fact that US
Secretary of State Colin Powell will meet the architects of the so-called Geneva
Accord. This is a group of individual Palestinians and Israelis who have taken
the initiative to look for solutions to their nations' seemingly intractable
problem. That such a group should exist
at all should not be surprising, given that common sense decrees it an absolute
necessity for Israelis and Palestinians to work hand in hand. But the hawks on
either side see it otherwise. It would
have been easy for Colin Powell to be led by hawkish Israel, which is the
common US way. Is what Powell is doing a belated new departure for the US,
especially following its earlier action in the week of refusing to guarantee a
$300 million loan to Israel? In itself that was no major amount, but what about
symbolically? When push comes to shove, maybe these two actions will disappear
like the morning dew, but they have happened and been recorded. For this the
region might have hope."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA: "Don't Let
`Palestine' Slip Away"
Gordon Barthos commented in the liberal Toronto Star
(12/11): "U.S. President George
Bush faces re-election next year and needs 'progress' toward peace. Sharon
could give him no better gift than a military pullout, and the scrapping of
some settlements. But a unilateral Israeli move would deprive Palestinians of
the chance to negotiate the borders of their new state, and they'd be left with
a smaller one than they might otherwise get....
This wouldn't bring Israelis the peace and security they crave, of
course.... That is a dismal prospect at
a time when there's a fresh international push--courtesy of the so-called
Geneva Plan--to resurrect interest in a far better option for both
sides.... If Palestinians can't forge a
truly united front, the Palestinian Authority, headed by Arafat, must act
resolutely in the best interest of all Palestinians worldwide, face down the
rejectionists and prevent them from sabotaging all hope of a just settlement.
Palestine must not be allowed to slip away. Palestinians deserve more than a
tiny state carved out by Israel's current right-wing leadership for its own
convenience. They have paid, through generations of resistance and suffering,
for something better. It should not be denied them."
ARGENTINA: "Peace Plan
For The Middle East"
An editorial in leading Clarin read (12/8): "The understanding between Israeli and
Palestinian political leaders, demonstrated in the so-called 'Geneva Plan,'
shows there is willingness to resume the peace road in the Middle East. Until
now, all the initiatives, including the so-called 'Road Map' promoted by the
US, Europe, Russia and the UN, lacked this bilateral participation.... According to the initiative proposed,
negotiations will be resumed on the point they were interrupted more than two
years ago.... But the most important
thing of this understanding is that the two parties promoted it and the support
they received for this purpose.... All
this leads us to believe that the deal can become an antecedent for future
negotiations."
BRAZIL: "The Geneva
Initiative"
Alberto Dines declared in center-left Jornal do Brasil
(12/6): "The so-called Geneva
Accord signed by Palestinian and Israeli idealists is not a real accord. It's a virtual one. But it has weight and value. It's a protocol between consciences not
between States. Hence its
strength.... The ostensive sympathy of
Colin Powell, and then of President Bush, indicates that for the first time in
three years subtlety and wisdom managed to infiltrate the State Department and
the White House. It's the greatest
affirmative action ever tried on an international level, the consecration of a
non-government idea that grants the citizen the full exercise of its ability of
thinking and acting in favor of the collective.... The unbelievable consonance between Sharon's
rage and the screaming Palestinian radicals grants the initiative...an
automatic and consecrating legitimacy:
When the extremes are shocking the third way becomes the only possible,
feasible path. The inability to identify
this new fact in the Middle East situation was the Chancellors' great mistake
in outlining President Lula's current visit to some Arab countries. When the presidential trip was planned the
Initiative had not yet gained the dimension that would turn it into a possible
alternative or even a rhetorical reference in official ceremonies. But in diplomacy--as well as in the media--he
who is unable to identify new information and opportunities is condemned to
look old-fashioned. The defense of our
economic interests should not lead us to an outdated political speech. Our fame as creative people calls for more
agile responses..... A speech in
Damascus in favor if the Geneva Initiative would have had great international
repercussion and would definitely have contributed to changing the atmosphere
of hatred involving the region.... If
governments are passive and rulers mistake 'realpolitik' with inertia and
resignation, and irrationality is imposed onto reasoning and ideology is
imposed over ideals, it's up to world citizens to support those who dared to break the equilibrium of
resentment and the see-saw of violence."
GUATEMALA: "Diplomatic
Option For The Middle East"
Business-oriented Siglo Veintiuno said (12/7): "Following the failure of the diplomatic
effort called Roadmap for Peace...last week a new initiative was announced in
Geneva to rescue important aspects of conversations that were initiated by Ehud
Barak and Yaser Arafat.... Everything
indicates that diplomatic negotiations, alongside mediation by the White House,
may bring results that will favor the complex negotiations between Israel and
Palestine in the context of the processes established by the controversial
Roadmap for Peace."
##