JERUSALEM (Mar. 2)
With the U.S.-Iraq confrontation off the front burner, Israel and the Palestinians are busily preparing for a new bout of American diplomacy.
A new peacemaking initiative was widely anticipated in the aftermath of a showdown with Iraq.
Pundits predicted that the United States, unpopular and resented in large parts of the Arab world after another massive bombardment of Iraq, would have made high-profile efforts to restart the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process – – by vigorously pressuring Israel if necessary.
As it happened, the bombardment was averted by the diplomatic efforts of the U.N. secretary-general. But resolving the Iraqi crisis peacefully did little to diminish Arab hostility toward Washington.
Across the region the argument is often made that Washington displays “double standards.” Israel, it is claimed, flouts or ignores U.N. resolutions just as Iraq does. And Israel, too, has weapons of mass destruction.
It is not hard, of course, to punch holes in this spurious analogy, and U.S. diplomats regularly do so.
Just the same, the Clinton administration would clearly like to be perceived, at least by the Arab moderates, as being even-handed. Hence the expectation this week, in Israel and in the Gaza Strip, that a renewed American diplomatic initiative is imminent.
In meetings President Clinton held in January with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, it was a clear that an American proposal was taking shape.
Sources say that under that proposal, Israel would withdraw another 13.1 percent from the West Bank. That redeployment would be made in phases and would be directly linked to Palestinian cooperation on security issues.
The Palestinians want much more than the 13.1 percent. But they will not balk because their key demand — that another Israeli redeployment follow later this year — enjoys Washington’s support.
For the Israeli government, 13.1 percent is too much. It prefers to keep the figure down to a single digit and to make that redeployment the last. Israel also wants any subsequent troop pullbacks to be part of the final-status negotiations.
In recent months, Netanyahu has repeatedly called for those negotiations to start. Arafat has responded that Israel should first live up to the terms of already-signed agreements.
But the way that the United States emerged from the latest round of its seven- year conflict with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may determine if, and how, this dispute is resolved.
Can the Netanyahu government now more readily afford to reject U.S. proposals given the way Washington’s standing in the Arab world has been weakened?
And does Washington’s determination to improve its position among the Arab moderates mean that it will push all the harder for Netanyahu — and Arafat – – to swallow its proposals for advancing the peace process?
Israeli and Palestinian leaders, at any rate, are anxious to project an image of earnest desire to move matters forward.
This explains a recent intense series of meetings between the two sides.
Last week, Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai met with Arafat’s second- in-command, Mahmoud Abbas, to discuss an issue left unresolved from the 1995 Interim Agreement — the opening of a Palestinian airport in the Gaza Strip.
The Palestinians asserted later that nothing was achieved at the meeting and that the airport’s opening is still blocked by disputes over security arrangements.
But this did not prevent the parties from arranging additional meetings this week, at the home of the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Edward Walker, just to show how earnest they were.
Israeli Cabinet minister Ariel Sharon, meanwhile, is understood to be conducting contacts on a high level with the Palestinian Authority, and there are reports that Netanayahu is also holding similar meetings.
At the same time, however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated that he would not accept an any “imposed solution.”
“An imposed solution is neither desirable nor viable and simply will never happen,” Netanayahu told a visiting delegation of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations on Monday.
He said that Palestinian attempts to “elicit outside pressure [on Israel] does not work.”
The expectant atmosphere that was created after the Iraqi crisis was defused has also affected the dormant peace talks with Syria and Lebanon.
Israeli Cabinet minister Michael Eitan, long an advocate of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, said he discerned at Sunday’s Cabinet meeting a significant shift in the prime minister’s policy regarding a pullback.
A lengthy debate took place, in the wake of fighting last week in Lebanon that left three Israeli soldiers dead and several others wounded.
The soldiers were identified as Lt. Assaf Rosenfeld, 21, of Acre, Staff Sgt. Ronni Diviri, of Tel Aviv and Staff Sgt. Ronen Eshel, 21, of Rishon le-Zion.
Netanyahu and Mordechai have both stressed in recent days that Israel accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 425, issued in 1978, requiring it to withdraw from southern Lebanon and requiring the Lebanese government to take control of the area.
Lebanon’s foreign minister was quoted as saying that there was nothing new in Netanyahu’s remarks about the resolution, and that Israel must unconditionally withdraw from Lebanon.
Neither Netanyahu nor Mordechai endorses the call for unilateral withdrawal – – a call that is still not mainstream, but one that has been growing stronger of late, both in the Likud and in the opposition Labor Party, as the Israeli death toll has risen during the past year.
But both men seem to be focusing on what the Beirut government and army might be able to do in terms of security guarantees, rather than holding out for a comprehensive peace accord with Syria.
Mordechai, who was scheduled to visit France this week, has signaled repeatedly that he wishes to follow up on an earlier dialogue with Paris on possible French involvement, both on the ground and in the diplomatic arena, to facilitate an Israeli withdrawal.
But French officials were reportedly skeptical about achieving an understanding on southern Lebanon without Syrian agreement. A senior French official was quoted in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz as saying, “We intend to try to convince Syria and Israel to renew negotiations. This is a central condition for talks on Lebanon.”
On Syria, two of Netanyahu’s top aides flew to Paris on Sunday for a brief and unannounced visit that reportedly was linked to recent signals emanating from Damascus that Syrian President Hafez Assad was interested in resuming the peace talks with Israel that were suspended two years ago.
Cabinet Secretary Danny Naveh and Netanyahu political adviser Uzi Arad reportedly met with a diplomat who had been instrumental in conveying the overture from Assad.
Syrian wariness over possible progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track, or over possible progress toward an Israel withdrawal from Lebanon, was a recurrent phenomenon between 1993 and 1996, when the Israeli-Arab peace process was in constant movement.
To that extent, at least, the latest signals from Syria may now be promising.