|
The Changing Cards In The Middle East Peace Process
By Dina Rashed
16/02/2001
The Palestinian-Israeli peace process is embarking upon a new phase where not only the players are changing but also the framework of the whole process, which is baffled with uncertainties.
The recent change in power in both Israel and the U.S., with Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush as the new heads of state, is only a part of the shifting kaleidoscope. The Intifadah as well is showing signs of altering its course, while the position of the Arab countries is blurred.
Despite the reaction of the Palestinian leadership to the election of Sharon as a "wait and see" policy, Sharon's stand on the peace process was well anticipated. Backed by a landslide majority of the Israeli electorate two weeks ago, his efforts are surely directed at restoring his country's security which was shaken, as seen by the Israelis, with the eruption of violence last September and heavily breached under Barak's plans for peace.
Sharon has repeatedly said that he is for security and, again, security - and with lesser enthusiasm, peace. Equally pressing for him is the need to satisfy the Israeli majority that elected him, which may even push him to negate the passage of the peace process previously taken by Barak (and considered as unsatisfactory by the Palestinians as well). A different framework for negotiations with the Palestinians is probably underway -despite the existence of a coalition government in Israel.
The U.S., playing as mediator, is changing the framework for peace as well. President Bush does not have Clinton's enthusiasm about reaching an agreement in the region - let alone a final one - unless the two sides are ready to accept any changes the agreement entails. This does not mean that Clinton's eagerness helped the process; on the contrary, his one-sided views only entangled the decades-long conflict.
Some Arab countries hoped that Bush would aim at grasping a more realistic picture of the situation and apply a more even-handed position as broker, but he has not placed the mid-east peace process as an immediate item on his foreign policy agenda. Already, the vocabulary of Secretary of State Powell and his aides is changing; there is now more mention of "talks" and "negotiations" and less of "final agreement" and "peace process." Bush's administration is expected to monitor the situation closely enough, but at the same time, limit presidential involvement on a personal basis. Bush declared in his statements that phone calls would probably do the job.
Although his administration does hope to improve U.S. relations with Arab countries - partly because of Bush's ties with oil companies - their position on Iraq and the U.S. led international sanctions against the country (Bush and Powell do agree on taking a tougher stance towards Iraq's leadership) is not going to make that move any easier.
On the Palestinian side, alarming signs regarding the future of the Intifadah and the unity within the Palestinian house are surfacing. Internal tension within the Palestinian community, notably between Islamic groups and secular Palestinian figures, is mounting - evidenced by the killing of Hisham Mekki, the Palestinian television magnate whose assassins justify his death on account of his corruption.
Sentiments are on the rise against corruption amongst Palestinian Authority officials as well, which has executed persons that it identified as collaborators with the Israeli occupation forces - although there is growing suspicion as to whether they were fairly tried or not. In the Jabalya refugee camp, confrontations took place about three weeks ago that are being called a feudal/tribal conflict.
As some civilians have started taking the law into their own hands, the PA's ability to fill the political vacuum and to set priorities in the best interest of the Palestinian national identity, as opposed to their own, is highly questionable.
A sense of pessimism over the future of the peace process is escalating. "There is a state of apprehension and fear, heightened anxiety on the street. People feel that the future is bleak. We are entering into a dark tunnel in which the predictions are very pessimistic," said Eyad Sarraj, director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, following the election of Sharon.
The other factor that could affect the peace talks is the role of the Arab countries and their support to the Intifadah. It is still unclear whether the upcoming summit in March will deliver any leverage to the Palestinians' rights. The previous summit held in October of last year in Egypt resulted only in financial support for the Palestinians, seen then as the minimum action that should be taken. One billion dollars in aid to the Palestinian people and their collapsing economy was recommended, but later, the actual donations were reduced to only $600 million. The Islamic Development Bank (IDB), where the funds were due to be deposited, had received at the beginning of February only $237 million and only $35 million has managed to reach the occupied territories. IDB officials are still waiting for Israeli permission to be admitted, and members of the Amman committee which was set up to follow through on the delivery of the funds are still debating on how to ensure the money gets there. Meanwhile, those countries that are carrying the major burden of the assistance are hesitant to deliver, doubting the PA officials because of rumors of corruption.
This has also created a domino effect with European countries that have promised to assist the strangling Palestinian economy. Strangely enough, the Iraqi government, whose own people are suffering a decade of sanctions that has killed close to a million Iraqi children, remains the major donor.
At the same time, the Israeli government is still keeping a block on Palestinian funds collected as tariffs on import/export goods by Israeli authorities that should have been handed over to the Palestinians.
How all these changes will impact the situation is still too early to tell; meanwhile, more Palestinian civilians are dying under occupation, while their fellow countrymen can basically only hope that their leadership knows which way to go.
|
