Complex turn in Arab-Israeli conflicts

The Palestinians thus received three severe blows in quick succession, two from their avowed enemy, Israel, and the other from the one considered to be an honest peace-broker, the United States. These made the angry Palestinians more angry and deeply outraged. Their determination to avenge became stronger. The Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia stated that the American approval of the controversial Israeli proposition about withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank caused to encourage the Israelis to kill the last of the Hamas leaders. The reactions of the Israelis have been mixed. Prime Minister Sharon and the hardliners have been happy. Sharon even commended the perpetrators of the crimes as their legitimate duty. The moderate Labour leaders, in contrast, remained significantly silent.

President George W Bush Jr.'s endorsement of Sharon's "plan of withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank" was unfortunate, though not unexpected. Israeil's Liqud Party and America's GOP, the Republicans, have been traditionally close, one generally supporting the other. The common binding force, the rich and influential American Jewry, has always put in a substantial input into the Republican vote bank and supported the latter with funds and media. On the other hand, the American Democratic Party has always sought to steer a relative course of balance and moderation on this vexed issue. Two democratic Presidents of the USA were instrumental in making outstanding contributions to the advancement of peace in the region. President Jimmy Carter successfully brokered the Camp David Agreement in 1978 between Israel And Egypt, and President Bill Clinton positively sought to establish rapproachement between President Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for which the latter even had to pay with his life.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Prime Minister Sharon obviously has a personal stake in the latest developments of the situation in the region. Accusation of a corruption scandal involving his son in a real estate development project a dozen years ago made him redesign his strategy. He invoked the precious support of the US President on an issue which pleased the radical elements of his Party and the more orthodox religious Party to no end. Their influence on the disposal of the case against him would be though uncertain, but worth trying, according to Sharon's strategy planners. The one who has to pay dearly for this adventure or misadventure, regrettably, is the peace process itself. The prospect of a negotiated peace under the US initiative has now receded to an unwelcome distance.

Why was it so? One may traverse a little to the past. The negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis have always depended on the stratagem of exchange of peace for land. The Palestinians will get back the occupied Gaza strip and the West Bank in exchange for total and lasting peace for the Israelis. The Palestine will obtain its statehood and live together with Israel in dignity and peace. Sharon's proposition changed this postulate, which had constituted the cornerstone of the policy of negotiations between the two opposing sides. The American endorsement of Sharon's proposal added salt to the injury for the Arabs. But Bush is hard-pressed for votes in the coming elections and the Jewish votes are both significant and precious.

According to Sharon's plan, the Israeli troops will withdraw from the Gaza strip and from the bulk of the West Bank, but Israel will retain a number of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. On the other hand, the Palestinian refugees will not be allowed to return to Israel, as had been contemplated and agreed to before. Both Sharon and Bush rested their reasoning on the theory of pragmatism and the changed situation. As for the Jewish settlement, done in defiance of the agreement and ignoring entreaties from the international community, they would remain adamant to dismantle their settlements and the Israeli authorities would be too hard-pressed to meet the consequences and the resultant outcry of such dismantlement. But one has to forget this was the precise strategy of the settlers, who had, at the very outset of their settlement, ignominiously cast aside the world opinion and hoped to be condoned ultimately by their patrons for their pre-meditated defiance.

What does then the future hold for the Arabs, the Israelis and the world at large? It is an axiomatic truth that security of Israel and Palestine is interdependent and cannot be accomplished without being in unison. The situation in the Middle East has always had its impact felt not only in the region but in the rest of the world. What influence will the recent developments have on the peace process in the region? Will the Palestinians eschew the insults and the injuries that were inflicted upon them? Or, will they be forced to yield to moderation by sacrificing their rights, which they hold as sacred, sublime and just? This is a million dollar question and no one is able to answer. Yet, the peace-loving people of the world must seek to advance the cause of peace and development by way of encouraging application of the principles of reason, fairness and justice. And, what better solution can there be than the one acceptable to both the contending parties, perhaps through the good offices of a truly impartial catalyst?

M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a member of BNP's Advisory Council.