|
|
Another Middle East peace bidThe POST, Sun, Dec,02, 2007.Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema
‘We meet to lay foundations for the establishment of a new nation, a democratic Palestine state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security’ remarked President Bush at a news conference at Annapolis. At the opening ceremony President Bush stood in the middle surrounded by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas. President Bush stressed the need for creating an independent state of Palestine and communicated to the Israeli Prime Minister that this state would provide the Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations- namely to live in peace with their neighbors. Following President Bush speech, Palestinian President emphasized that the path of peace is the only choice. He thanked the international community for its support and urged Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories and to free political prisoners. Not only he stressed that the region stands at a crossroads and such opportunity might not b e repeated but he also highlighted the fact that both the Palestinians and the Israelis favored a peace process. While the expectations attached to this current round of peace negotiations appear to be somewhat on the high side, there is no doubt that this conference is indeed important and it is expected that some new road map would agreed upon. One cannot ignore the fact that during the last so many years no movement towards settlement was undertaken in a substantive way. Instead the last few years have only witnessed violence between the factions of the Palestinians as well as between the Israeli forces and the Palestinians. What made this conference important is the fact that it was called by the American initiative which reflects the determination of the incumbent American administration to ensure forward movement towards some form of settlement. Far too long the area has been in the throws of conflict cobweb and the realization that efforts to pave the way for peace need to be vigorously taken by all the insiders as well as the outsiders. It is a well known fact that the only country which can effectively influence the Israelis is the US and without the active involvement of the Americans, the peace in the Middle East is likely to remain an illusive commodity. Not only being the convener but also the encouraging words uttered by President Bush at the conference certainly points positively towards the ultimate eventuality we all desire. Expectations need to be moderated as one must take stock of many tricky problems that are likely to confront the peace makers at Annapolis. Among the issues which would require concerted, sincere and consistent active efforts of the Americans include the status of Jerusalam, return of refugees, Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, borders, water and security. All of them are not so easy to resolve. Among these problems the status of Jerusalam is likely to consume most of the efforts. The Palestinians want return to pre-1967 border. At the time East Jerusalam was with the Palestinian and they need to get their portion of Jerusalam back but the Israelis have not only made the city as their capital but had also occupied all of it. One way out is to make Jerusalam an international city but it appears that most participants may not approve this solution Alternatively they can go back to pre-1967 situation which would enable the Palestinian to control the east Jerusalam. Would the Israeli agree to vacate the East Jerusalam? The second complex problem revolves around the return of Palestinian refugees. All refugees have right to get back to their homes. But everybody knows that Israeli authorities are dead set to reject this demand. The recent negotiations have indicated that the Israeli may agree to selective return of the refugees but they are unwilling to allow all of them to return to their homes. One way out is to agree to some form of roadmap under which the return of refugees may be spread over years. This would give time to both sides. The Palestinian authorities would face the problem of absorbing them and the Israelis could monitor the return carefully. The third problem is about the illegal settlements of the Israelis. It is generally asserted by many in Israel that they would not abandon their settlements. A balanced compromise formula could be worked out under which most of settlement should be vacated except those which the Israeli authorities regard as important and difficult to be vacated. Here it appears that the Palestinian should also be accommodative. The fourth issue that is perhaps one of the trickiest and is also linked with the notion of security and that is the border issue. If the parties are determined to resolve all the issues, then there is always a way out. The Israeli argue that they want secure borders in order to perpetual peace in the region. In essence no one is going to dispute this notion but if it is to be secured at the cost of large chunk of Palestinian and Syrian lands, then it is going to pose a major impediment which may entail long negotiation process. Whatever the Americans may think, there is no doubt that Syria is an important regional actor. Without active Syrian participation the advent of peace in the area is not going to be all that easy and stable. The Syrians appeared to be skeptical about the outcome of this conference and perhaps that is why they had sent a junior level official. Golan Heights were forcibly snatched from the Syrians during the 1967 war and if a permanent peace is the ultimate goal of the peace promoters, then one should make every effort to get Syria actively involved in the process. The final problem revolves around equitable apportionment of water. While one recognizes the fact that both states need a fair amount of water and the water is already becoming a scarce commodity in the region, some innovative approach could be worked out just as it was done to resolve India-Pakistan water issue about fifty years ago. A joint project with the help of some donors and appropriate technology could pave the way for an acceptable solution to this problem. While the Israeli Prime Minister’s assertion after the peace talks that failure to negotiate a two state solution with Palestinians could threaten Israel’s long term survival seems to be a logical conclusion, the skepticism demonstrated by the Israelis in a recent poll which indicated that 83% of the Israelis are do not expect a peace deal soon tells a totally different story. Somewhat similar skepticism has been also aired in many other parts of the world. However one cannot dispute the fact that once again a process has been initiated and now it all depends upon the sincere and active efforts of the US to take it to its logical ends.
|
|