Egypt and Jordan are proposing a way out of the Middle East diplomatic deadlock under which a Palestinian “state” would first be proclaimed in 42 percent of the Occupied Territories and then enter into peace negotiations with Israel, Mahmoud Rimawi writes in the Amman daily Al-Ra’i.
Commenting on press reports of an “Egyptian plan” to establish a Palestinian state in early 2003, he says Egyptian diplomats have been working closely with their Jordanian counterparts on such a blueprint, with “the knowledge and understanding of the Palestinian parties.”
The idea, “which has become common knowledge,” is for a state to be declared in the enclaves of the West Bank and Gaza Strip designated as Areas A and B under the Oslo Accords, whereupon negotiations would be held between the Israeli and Palestinian states to decide within three to four years the final borders of the state “in conformity with international terms of reference,” particularly UN Security Council Resolution 242.
Rimawi says the Egyptians leaked information about the plan ahead of President Hosni Mubarak’s visit to Washington later this week. It was “in this context” that Mubarak sent senior adviser Osama al-Baz and intelligence chief Amr Suleiman to Tel Aviv and Ramallah, respectively.
The Egyptians are trying to forge a “close connection” between the proposed political settlement and the “reforms” that are made to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and chiefly its security services, Rimawi writes. This, he explains, is aimed at “blocking Israeli dictates” and ensuring that a search is made for “political solutions and not merely security solutions.”
Washington’s Arab allies are thereby trying to seize on the opportunity provided by President George W. Bush’s repeated calls for a Palestinian state to be established as part of an eventual peace settlement in the region, Rimawi adds. This is the “essential common ground” shared by the American position and that of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco.
Rimawi concedes that the proposal that these countries are backing is “modest,” but insists that it “conflicts fundamentally” with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan for a long-term interim agreement.
Although Sharon’s scheme “covers the same territory as the Egyptian-Jordanian plan,” it envisages extending only limited administrative autonomy to Palestinians in these areas, leaves subsequent final status negotiations open-ended, and does not even entail calling off the continuing Israeli military offensive.
That offensive aims at destroying the foundations of a Palestinian state so as to block the establishment of one in future, Rimawi writes, and also crushing the will of the Palestinian people and pushing them “either to accept ‘any solution,’ or to respond with bombings that lose them any support for their just cause.”
Sharon is likely to respond with “counter-scenarios,” while continuing and intensifying his military assault and his campaign of assassinations and arrests, says Rimawi. His political goal is to strip the PA of its representative status and render it “irrelevant” by requiring it to comply with an endless series of demands and conditions, in order to “divert attention away from a political settlement and suffice with keeping the PA on probation.”
Egypt’s semi-official daily Al-Ahram, in which proposals for a Palestinian state to be declared in 2003 were floated last week, suggests that one thing Mubarak will be trying to do in Washington is persuade the Bush administration mot to go along with Sharon’s drive to sideline Arafat.
Its main editorial describes the visit as being of “major importance,” given Egypt’s status as the “pivot”
of any regional peace moves, the high esteem in which Mubarak is held, and the “equal partnership based on mutual respect” binding Cairo and Washington.
Any differences the two sides may have “are over tactics and not strategy,” Al-Ahram argues, as both are committed to the pursuit of a negotiated peace in the region. Egypt believes that violence will lead nowhere, and that there must be a return to the negotiating table.
“It is from this perspective that Egypt constantly affirms that Sharon’s approach, of imposing a fait accompli through aggression on the Palestinian people, has been a proven failure, and indeed has created the conditions for violence to thrive,” it says.
“Nor will attempts to isolate or delegitimize President Yasser Arafat, or to impose preconditions aimed at prolonging the tension, succeed in evading the core of the issue. Arafat is the real partner in any negotiations, and peace will not be achieved without giving the Palestinians their legitimate rights ­ above all, the right to establish a state with Jerusalem as its capital,” Al-Ahram writes.
The United States has the capacity to play a pivotal role in the achievement of peace in the region, it says, and Mubarak’s visit provides a “major opportunity” to start “extricating the region from the dark tunnel into which Sharon has led it, in order to achieve peace for all its peoples.”
The Beirut daily Al-Mustaqbal reports that Cairo is heavily involved in the process of “restructuring” the PA in a manner that “opens the door” to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
According to the paper, “it has been agreed” that the two key players in that state are to be PLO second-in-command Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), who is to be its prime minister, and Gaza Strip security chief Mohammed Dahlan, who is to become head of a new unified security agency.
Al-Mustaqbal refers to a “convergence of regional and international wishes” that Abbas and Dahlan should assume these new functions in future, “at the expense” of Arafat’s other political and security aides, in a manner that curbs the Palestinian leader’s own powers.
Dahlan uses Saudi Arabia’s Asharq al-Awsat as a platform to deny that he has any personal ambitions and to claim that he is only interested in serving the Palestinian people.
In a Gaza-datelined interview with the leading Saudi pan-Arab daily, Dahlan said it was necessary to reduce the number of PA security agencies, define their responsibilities, and “perhaps change many of the faces that have led them over the past seven years.”
But he added that he was not coveting the job of overall security chief himself.
“I personally requested from President Arafat that I not be part of this setup, not out of any ambition but to set an example that the chiefs of the security agencies must be changed,” he said.
“I don’t want to be a minister or a policeman. I accept any position and ­ by my own volition ­ I informed President Arafat of my wish not to be part of this security establishment … thus sacrificing my personal privileges.”
Dahlan dismissed “rumors” that he was being groomed to become prime minister of a Palestinian administration, noting that no such post exists and reiterating that he had not been considering what his future role might be.
“All my thinking has been focused on how we can build the ideal security organization and government that satisfies the Palestinian public. I am haunted by the need to satisfy the Palestinian public, not in order to gratify its wishes but to promote its interests. After that, I can decide ­ if I like such a position I can continue, and if I do not like it I can live as an (ordinary) citizen and I have no problem with that,” he said.
Nevertheless, Dahlan ­ who has been publicly at loggerheads with his counterpart in the West Bank, Jibril Rajjoub ­ stressed that the existing Palestinian security agencies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip “must not remain separate.”
“There must be one head for internal security, for intelligence, for general security and for the police, with legal guarantees for each branch, and each branch performing its duty as defined by a written law. And this is what will happen, God willing,” he said.
Dahlan stressed that these and other “reforms” were not being carried out in response to pressure from the Americans and Israelis.
“They want a single security agency, but we will not do that. There will be three or four agencies, but each with clear and specified powers and duties. The coming of (CIA Director George) Tenet has nothing to do with unifying the security agencies. We will not allow any partner to meddle in this internal affair, in which no one is entitled to assume that role other than President Yasser Arafat.”
Nahla Shahhal writes in Saudi-run pan-Arab Al-Hayat that reform has resurfaced as the paramount political preoccupation of the Palestinians since the Israeli reinvasion of the West Bank, with all Palestinian factions issuing statements about the matter and new formations emerging daily at every level to debate it.
While Arafat has been taking steps, such as signing the Basic Law, and is planning to appoint a new Cabinet, revamp the security services, reform the judiciary and call fresh elections, “no less urgent” demands for reform of the PA have come from Israel and the US.
Those made by Israel have been “caricaturish and cynical,” but those voiced by the US touch on “real problems in the Palestinian arena,” Shahhal writes.
Yet the motivation behind the demand for reform remains political rather than “technical,” she remarks. The aim is to create a new order that is strong enough to adopt, defend and enforce compliance with the US vision of a political settlement ­ which is, naturally, incompatible with even the bare minimum of Palestinian demands.
And while the US slowly sets the regional stage for such a solution, its envoys are focusing on the issue of reforming the PA to give this priority over all other problems ­ chiefly Israel’s continuing occupation and military incursions, which it is constantly threatening to expand.
The US has “real, and in some cases influential” assets within the PA that are prepared to adopt not only the practical steps it wants taken but also its overall political outlook or “horizon” for a solution, says Shahhal. Arafat’s financial adviser, Mohammed Rashid, had no qualms about publicly declaring that he was discussing details of proposed reforms with the Americans, and Arafat is under direct pressure from figures within his entourage to agree to measures that are at odds with Palestinian national interests.
This has long been the case, but it has worsened since the Oslo Accords were signed, and assumed dangerous proportions since Sharon went on his all-out offensive, she says. So far, Arafat’s clout has prevented this current from gaining the ascendancy, as has the Palestinian people’s dogged determination to uphold their rights, even if that means putting up with enormous sacrifices.
These “figures and circles, who do not speak merely out of conviction,” advocate measures that are the complete opposite of the kind of reforms demanded by Palestinian public opinion, grassroots organizations, political leaders and intellectuals, Shahhal writes. The “battle for reform” is thus being waged by completely opposing forces within the Palestinian camp, while being used as a “shield for every kind of American evasion and Israeli aggression.”

Copyright © The Daily Star