By Mahmoud Al Abed
English News Editor
When the Palestinian leadership rejected the US-Israeli proposals at the July Camp David summit, the issue of Jerusalem topped the list of the thorniest issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. President Arafat was talking about the city as the third holiest place in Islam, and that he needed a mandate from the Arabs and Muslims if he would ever make a compromise over the city.
The Holy City was also the stage for the outbreak of Palestinian second Intifada after the provocative visit by the notorious Likud leader, Ariel Sharon. Apparently, Israel and the US have learned their lesson and realized fully that security for Israel, which is their sole aim and not peace, would not be achieved if Jerusalem is not under Palestinian sovereignty.
In the US recent peace plan, there was a step forward, and east Jerusalem was proposed as the capital of a Palestinian independent state, which is to be established on Gaza Strip and “94-96% of West Bank territory … The land annexed by Israel should be compensated by a land swap of 1-3%, in addition to the arrangements e.g. Permanent Safe Passage,” according to the plan as published by the Newsweek.
There remains the right of return, which surfaces as the most stubborn obstacle in the path of “peace.” The Palestinian people would never relinquish this right, but a great majority of them would ask if there is ever a solution to this problem. According to Israel, accepting the return of five million Palestinians into the so-called “Israel proper” is suicide, and it is a remote possibility that the Jewish state would ever accept that.
The “best in Clinton’s judgment,” is that Israel acknowledges “the moral and material suffering caused to the Palestinian people as a result of the 1948 War and the need to assist in the international community’s effort in addressing the problem such as an International commission to implement all aspects that flow from the agreement: compensation, resettlement, rehabilitation, etc.”
Clinton believes that this is the most feasible solution and if the deal is accepted by the Palestinians, the refugees will live happily everafter. He says that there are five possible final homes for the refugees: the State of Palestine, areas of Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap, rehabilitation in the host countries, resettlement in third countries and admission to Israel.
The question is: Is there anymore that the Palestinian leadership can obtain from peace negotiations? Yes, it is their right to ask for more explanation from the US administrations and even for some changes in the plan, but is it possible that all their conditions be met by Israel and the Superpower?
As the scenario reaches this point, it is legitimate to ask why and where to go from here. There is a factor of “take it or leave it,” in the Clinton’s proposals, and if a peace deal is not hammered out on the basis of these suggestions, there will be none. The result, as many believe and Israel threatens, is a wide-scale regional war, and it is natural that the Palestinians and their leadership will recycle the 1965 slogans calling for annihilating Israel.
For those less pessimistic, the Palestinian rejection is no more than a political maneuver based on the cards they have and the political status quo in the region and the US.
The Palestinian leaders know well that Israel is obsessed with its security, and this cannot be guaranteed unless the Palestinians stop their Intifada, which is fueled by martyrs’ blood. However, they would not rush into accepting a deal while their first partner at the negotiating table is a loser, and the second is a man who will be history in days.
If a peace deal is to be concluded, this should be done with the coming Israeli premiere under the “fair” sponsorship of the Bush administration, which, together with the International community, must guarantee its full implementation.
The Palestinians will not leave it; rather, they will take it when the atmosphere is more suitable for that. Meanwhile, the Intifada will remind Israel every day that security is a far dream unless the occupation comes to an end.
Accordingly, the Palestinians are entitled to address the Israelis saying “take it or leave it.”
