On Dropping
Both Netanyahu and Arafat--
An Alternative Way to Peace
By JONATHAN POWER
LONDON--It would be fair to assume that while in China
President Bill Clinton didn't give much thought to Israel
and the Palestinians. Even before he left Washington his
whole body language seemed to suggest, "What more can I do?
They've really got to work it out between them."
The steam has gone out of American diplomacy. Israel's
prime minister, the sand-blaster, Benjamin Netanyahu, has
won the battle of attrition but lost the war for
peace.
In retrospect, it appears that the Clinton Administration
saw this coming--only six weeks ago Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright publically lectured Netanyahu saying, in
so many words, that nothing had happened in the two years
since he became prime minister and underlined the barb with
praise for the cooperative attitude of Yasser Arafat, the
Palestinian leader. The Clinton Administration feel they've
lent their weight to what was essentially a pro-Netanyahu
compromise on the next stage of Israel's withdrawal from the
occupied West Bank and all Netanyahu did was bargain,
equivocate, argue for the fine print of minuscule
percentages that bore no relation to previous Israeli
commitments and then having a deal in his grasp stalled.
The American huffing, puffing and public scolding did not
budge Netanyahu. He played with Washington's compromise like
a cat with a half dead mouse, turning it over, letting it
run a little, then when it was exhausted to the point of
expiration, pushing it to one side with a disdainful last
push of the paw.
Netanyahu is the master politician--of the short term
variety, whose horizon has no historical dimension. Lost on
him is the argument that granting Palestinians freedom and
political independence is not a matter of Israeli altruism
but an essential precondition for Israel's security.
At the time of the Oslo Accord of September 1993, when
the since assassinated prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, made
the historic decision to seek a permanent peace with
Palestine, he kept to himself how much of the occupied West
Bank he was prepared to give up because he feared it was too
low to be palatable to the Palestinians. In fact it was a
great deal--certainly compared with Netanyahu's paltry
offers--a robust 50%. Yet now we have had the strange
spectacle of Yasser Arafat, persuaded by those who should
know better in Washington, entering the ring with Netanyahu
to argue percentage points around the 40% mark while
apparently consigning all previous Palestinian negociating
demands, even the reasonable ones, to the bin.
Where does this leave Washington? Partly in a state of
obvious intellectual exhaustion. Take the Washington Post.
Only a year ago its chief editorial writer, Stephen
Rosenfeld, Jewish himself, could criticise Netanyahu's
proposals for only offering the Palestinians "a small
dependent, mishapen territory, carved up by Israeli roads
and vulnerable to Israeli intervention the first time a kid
threw a stone". By May this year the Washington Post was
reduced to wearily observing that U.S. tactics "makes him
(Mr Netanyahu) rather than anyone on the Clinton team the
arbiter of American policy".
Netanyahu has seemingly ground everyone down.
Fortunately, having accomplished what two years ago would
have seemed impossible, totally shifting the goal posts in
his favour, he now refuses to play. Whether this be divine
intervention, or just the hubris of a politician who gives
all for tactics but is totally bereft of the ability to
score, must be up for question.
Stalemate, nevertheless, is the most sensible outcome. It
gives everyone on both sides breathing room to re-assess the
leadership question. Arafat's regime is already alienated
from the Palestinian public by his authoritarian style that
relies on his security forces to impose his will, bipassing
the Legislative Council, and by the massive corruption that
accompanies this unbridled power.
It should surprise nobody that he faces a growing
challenge for power from Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of
the militant Hamas, the organisation which has had no
compunction about using suicide bombers or any other means
to advance its cause. Nor that this challenge seems to be
being backed by the Arab states who one after another played
host to the Sheikh on his recent tour of capitals,
replenishing his war chest and bolstering his prestige.
Until now Hamas has been a spoiler rather than a
challenger. But this can change as disenchantment with
Arafat grows. Whether it be Arafat or Yassin or, even
better, someone elected by the legislature, such as Haydar
'Abd al-Shafi who resigned a year ago from the Palestinian
Executive Authority to protest Arafat's corruption, the wise
course for the Palestinians is to wait for new Israeli
elections--which President Ezer Weisman has just suggested
should be called early.
Netanyahu has nothing to offer. That is clear now.
Palestinians should hold out for at least what Rabin was
prepared to concede and trust that the voters who returned
Netanyahu to office by a mere 29,500 votes will have the
good sense to heed the views of the opposition Labour
Party's Ehud Barak who, somewhat belatedly, has returned to
the well trodden ways of his predecessor. In an interview
last month he emphasized the uniqueness of the window of
opportunity for peace, following the end of the Cold War and
the Gulf war. It will, said Mr Barak, be closed when "some
Arab nation will have nuclear devices and the means to
launch them or maybe through a new wave of fundamentalist
vitality among Moslem nation states".
If Mr Clinton is being quiet on Israel/Palestine, is it
because he too realizes that Netanyahu cannot bring
peace?
July 1, 1998,
LONDON
Copyright © 1998 By JONATHAN POWER
Note: I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172
and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
|