CHAMP DAVID TALKS ON M-EAST PEACE FAILED
-
BATTLE OVER JERUSALEM-
Muslehuddin Ahmad
Two disasters happened yesterday on July 25,
2000 – Air France Concorde, a supersonic passenger plane, en route
to New York crashed in Gonesse, near Charles de Gaulle air port
killing 113 people (109 in the plane and 4 on the ground)
and the Champ David summit on M-East peace crash landed after
having negotiated at almost supersonic speed for about two weeks.
The Concorde unfortunately killed 113 people, one does not know how
many would be the ultimate victims of the crash landing of the CD
summit.
As the situation stands, it would
probably have been better to terminate the CD talks as President
Clinton had to leave for the G-8 summit in Okinawa allowing the
Israeli and Palestinian leaders to return home and ponder over the
issues and the progress made. A fresh summit could be arranged
before the crucial date of September 13, 2000 for a final chance for
peace.
But as it seems, all the three leaders
in Champ David (CD) summit were in a hurry – each one for a
different reason though – to strike the M-East peace deal.
Unfortunately, they failed. President Clinton, while talking to the
press after the summit said, “
the two sides are not able to reach an agreement at this
time” leaving the scope for further summit in a couple of weeks.
This needs to be pursued vigorously as temporary or final departure
of any one from the scene would make M- East peace terribly
uncertain. Prime Minister Ehud
Barak having barely
survived the second no-confidence motion in the Knesset (parliament)
came to Washington for the C D summit. He, however, said before
leaving for Washington that “I am not going alone” to the
States. “ With me is still all the wide public of Israel, citizens
who hope a modern Israel can be built on peace and security, a
country that is ending 30 years of ruling another people.” But the
Opposition Likud leader Ariel Sharon said – the Prime Minister
does not represent anyone except himself. Even former Prime Minister
Netanyahu reappeared after a long time in the political scene of
Israel and heavily criticised Barak for giving away nation’s capital.
Palestinian
leader Yaseer Arafat who is seemly in failing health has been facing
tremendous pressure from his people to recover all the occupied
territories including East Jerusalem which the Palestinians want as
the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian people and
particularly the younger generations are getting increasingly
impatient over the sluggish peace process. He has also promise bound
to declare Palestinian State on September 13, 2000 regardless of
what happens in the Champ David.
President
Clinton has to leave the White House within a couple of months and
must find a solution in order to make M-East peace the legacy of his
presidency. Because of this and certainly for the welfare of the
people of the region he appealed to both Arafat and Barak to “find a way”
which they could not despite best efforts.
However, with
this sort of political and diplomatic background the Champ David
summit started on July11, 2000. Joel Peter of Ben Gurion University
said, “ Never before have the stakes been so high, the issues so
complex, the leaders so weak.” As the stakes are
really very high President Clinton personally chaired some of
the crucial meetings and tried to bridge the yawning gaps that
divide both the Palestinians and the Israelis. Marathon meetings –
many of them very late in to the nights - failed to produce the
results. The parties remained divided on major issues – namely
status of Jerusalem, borders of the Palestinian State, refugees,
settlements etc. After nine days of intense negotiations, the news
black out was lifted and it was announced that the peace
negotiations have broken up without any agreement. One side blamed
the other – Barak was seen as ‘behaving like settlers’ and
Arafat was termed as ‘not a partner of peace’.
However, later there was an agreement to continue the
negotiations while President Clinton would be away. Though there
were some progress on some issues Jerusalem became the stumbling
block. President himself came to brief the press just before leaving
for Okinawa.. He looked visibly tired after the night- long
meetings. He said – These are the hardest peace issues I have ever
dealt with. Nobody wants to give up; therefore, we also should not
give up. The decision was that while President would be away,
Secretary Albright will sit for the President; the negotiations will
continue. President Clinton was late to leave for the G-8 summit but
because of the importance of the matter he decided to return early
which he actually did and immediately joined the peacetalks.
Though all
four major issues are difficult, Jerusalem, as expected turned out
to be the hardest of all. President Clinton emphasised on this while
talking to the press and praised, though mildly, Prime Minister
Barak for making some moves on the issue of sovereignty on Jerusalem
from his basic “red line” which President Arafat apparently
could not. Here it needs to be pointed out that it is P M Barak who
has to make moves as he is occupying the entire Jerusalem and not
President Arafat.
Israel wants
Jerusalem to remain its eternal undivided capital. A Jewish
community weekly in the US published an ad saying Jerusalem “has
been the capital of the Jewish people for over 3000 years”.
Similar claims were also put forward by the Israeli side. History
does not substantiate such claims. The history of Jerusalem is very
long and complex. Jerusalem has witnessed many wars over thousands
of years. Many invaders including Greeks, Romans, Persians came,
fought wars over Jerusalem and occupied it but later were thrown out
by others. The Temple in Jerusalem appeared to be the main target.
Among many attacks one can site the destruction of the Temple by
Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC, when the Jews were taken into
captivity. The return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity took
place in about 520 BC and they rebuilt the Temple but the final
destruction of the Temple was under Titus in 70 AD.
With this sort
of long and complex history where all three religions – the people
of the Faith are involved, the negotiations will obviously be highly
difficult and unless the descendants of Abraham decide to be
flexible and try to share the remains of history equitably, the
peace can not be achieved.. Jerusalem is undoubtedly sacred to all
three religions but the religious sites are located in separate
areas. As ultimate sovereignty is with the Almighty, the negotiators
may have to show flexibility on the issue. Apart from national
sentiment of both sides, the sovereignty is, however, very important
as this greatly determines the political and administrative
structures of the states. The historical facts aside, East Jerusalem
had been under Arabs before 1967 war. Therefore, the demand of the
Palestinians for full sovereignty over East Jerusalem is valid. But
it is also a fact that Western Wall i.e The Wailing Wall is in East
Jerusalem and is an integral part of the Walled City (Old City).
Therefore, there should be a way to allow free access of the people
of the Faith to the religious sites whatever may be the ultimate
agreement on the issue of sovereignty.
The idea of
joint sovereignty in its present form put forward by the US has been
discarded by the Palestinians for obvious reasons as their claim is
for full sovereignty over East Jerusalem. The details of the
proposals are yet not available, but the present proposal in the
form of three sections with some form of Palestinian sovereignty
over the suburb area of East Jerusalem including Abu Dis which
excludes the Old City was a non-starter. The ideal solution that the
Palestinians could readily accept is something that will give full
Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem but problem lies with
the Jewish religious site. Therefore, the idea of joint or shared
sovereignty seems to be the possible way out, but it has be worked
out in a way that would take care of the sentiments of both
Palestinians and Israelis. Israeli claim of full sovereignty
over “ biblical promised land’ can not solve the problems. In
any case, the land might have been “promised” to the
“wondering people” for homes but there were already people in
that “promised land’ with their sovereignty on that land. This
needs to be considered seriously before rejecting the claim of those
who lived in that land before.
Therefore, the idea of joint sovereignty deserves consideration and
the following may give clues to any future deal:
The new area
of East Jerusalem including those three villages with Abu Dis may go
under full sovereignty of the Palestinians. They may be prepared to
set up their Parliament and other administrative establishments, as
already indicated, in the new area as there is hardly space in and
around the Old City for such purposes.
The entire
area of the Old City with all the religious sites including the
Western Wall i.e the Wailing Wall should be under joint sovereignty
of the Palestinians and Israelis. But initially the UN should be
involved for some agreed period for making the system work. There
must be complete freedom of access to the people of the Faith into
the respective religious sites. Politically, administratively and
for all other purposes the Arabs of East Jerusalem should belong to
the Palestinian state and the people of the Jewish Faith should
belong to Israel. This could be
a unique solution of the unique problem; one does not have to look
for precedents. Indeed, this could be a precedent for others if
situation so demands.
The area of
East Jerusalem would have to undergo some changes as the new areas
would have to be brought under East Jerusalem and the Jewish
settlements in the extended areas beyond the Green Line may go to
Israel.
Alternatively,
Palestinians should have sovereignty over East Jerusalem minus the
Western Wall and adjoining areas with Jewish areas and other
establishments over which Israel should have sovereignty. The access
to the Western Wall can be through the Dung Gate. Even today the
Jewish people use exclusively the Dung Gate for entry into the
Western Wall (I and my wife used the same gate for entering the
Western Wall when we visited Jerusalem sometime ago).
Similar sort
of arrangement may lead to an acceptable compromise and thus end the
half a century old conflict between the Palestinians and the
Israelis. Even Hamas might agree to such an arrangement. Therefore,
both the leaders must make daring moves towards a solution.
September 13 dead line is a man made decision. If necessary this
should move towards the end of the year allowing maximum chance to
the peace all have been desperately looking for.
Any such deal
with enough security guarantees from the States and backed by
adequate financial assistance from the US and the rest of the world
may satisfy both Israelis and the Palestinians. After all, the
people in the area minus the radicals want peace with security. Any
deal that can guarantee peace with security would be acceptable to
the people.
|