Compromises that are not

January 23, 2007

Compromises that are not


The United States has promised an "intense" diplomatic drive in the Middle East and lift the logjam in efforts for a Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
The move comes despite the many troubles that Washington faces in the Middle East: The four-year-old guagmire in Iraq, refusal to deal Syria, the crisis in Lebanon, and a looming confrontation with Iran. Riding over these issues is the anti-US sentiment among the people of the region who see Washington as determined to exploit their resouorces and not to allow them exercise their legitimate rights.
Bush administration officials seem to believe that the events since the US-led invasion of Iraq have clarified the situation to a point that Washington could launch a new drive for Israeli-Palestinian peace as the starting point.
That belated realisation manifested into the recent tour of the region undertaken by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week for talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders as well as other influential Arab leaders.
It would be naive for anyone to believe that Israeli-Palestinian peace could be achieved simply because Washington felt there was a need for it in order to help the US solve other problems it faces in the Middle East. However, it could help the US restore its credibility that is so vital before it could seriously address the other problems of the region.
The requirements for peace in Palestine are clear:
Israel should be ready to leave the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and to withdraw to the lines it held before the 1967 war. This means willingness to dismantle the Jewish colonies that dot the West Bank, but Israel could negotiate mutually acceptable arrangements with the Palestinians over the fate of some of the settlements.
Israel should be ready to accept that its insistence that "unified Jerusalem" is its "eternal and indivisible capital" is not viable, given that the eastern half of the Holy City is where the Palestinians should set up their capital. West Jerusalem is not an issue anymore in real terms. Neither the Palestinians nor the Arabs have any interest in the western half of the Holy City.
Israel should seek mutually acceptable arrangements with the Palestinian people to ensure that the religious sentiments of all faiths are respected in an international framework without jeopardising the Palestinians' right to exercise their political rights with Arab East Jerusalem as their capital.
Israel should be ready to accept the reality the Palestinian refugee problems is the direct result of its creation in Palestine in 1948 and the measures it used — including massacres and other terror tactics — in its "ethnic cleansing" drive on the land under its control after its creation. The refugees should be allowed to exercise their right to return home or receive compensation in lieu as provided for in UN Resolution 194 of 1948. This does not mean — nor is it feasible — that two or three million Palestinians would flock to their ancestral homes in land where Israel was created in 1948. It important for them to have their rights recognised, and an overwhelming majority of them would simply opt for receiving compensation. The small segment among them who desire to exercise the right of return should be allowed to do so, but under arrangements negotiated by the Palestinians and Israel and based on criteria like family reunion.
On the surface, the onus is on Israel to move forward, but these requirements also impose inherent compromises on the part of the Palestinians that many among them would find hard to accept. If the Israeli leaders believe that they would find it difficult to persuade their people to accept the minimum compromises, then the Palestinian leaders also face the same problem.
Tackling these issues with a view to surmounting them should be the task that is launched at the proposed triateral meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders proposed by Rice, the US secretary of state, in Washington next month.
Indeed, there are certain "compromises" that the US also have to make in order to advance the process, but these should not pose a problem if the Bush administration commits itself to upholding fairness and justice as a universal imperative.
Being fair and just to everyone should be the way of life for the sole superpower of this planet. For the US to be selective in determining who deserves justice based on its own interests and those of its allies without considering the facts and realities would only defeat the purpose. Washington has to make up its mind to be neutral and commit itself to abide by international legitimacy and adopt a tough and firm stand against any Israeli and pro-Israeli effort to influence it away from being fair and just to the Palestinian people. That is all the Arab World is asking of the Bush administration. Is it too tall a demand?