THE DEAL PUT forward by the Americans to end Israel’s siege of Yasser Arafat’s Ramallah headquarters in return for foreign prison officers guarding the four men who allegedly assassinated the Israeli tourism minister does not inspire great confidence. It has the potential to fall apart in so many different ways that it will be little short of a miracle if it actually succeeds.
It is not the basic proposal that is unworkable. The idea of an international force — in this case, prison guards — fulfilling functions that neither the Israelis trust the Palestinians to carry out or vice versa has been accepted by the Palestinian leadership, by Arab governments, the UN, the US, the Europeans, indeed almost everyone else for some considerable time. It is the Israelis who have so far baulked at any international presence.
The deal should therefore be seen as a breakthrough. If there can be international guards, then there can be internationmal peacekeepers. Nor does the deal undermine Palestinian sovereignty: Many a new independent state or one about to become independent is lent officials from other countries so that it can build up skills of its own. The only thing that rings warnings is that the guards for the four Palestinians implicated in Rehavam Zeevi’s killing are to be Americans or Britons.
It is a poisoned chalice. The four may well be seen by Palestinians as heroes and their jailers therefore as Israel’s stooges. That is virtually certain if they are Americans or Britons. It is a crazy choice. Their presence will raise Palestinian hackles. The two countries are seen as having uniquely dirty hands in the Palestinian tragedy: Britain historically, because of its pivotal role in the creation of the Jewish state through the Balfour Declaration and its actions during the Palestine Mandate; and the US currently, because of its unquestioning support for Israel. It would be much better to choose someone else, like the Italians or the Canadians.
For the moment that is a side issue. The real problem is Ariel Sharon. He has supposedly agreed to the deal. This is the same man who said that he would accept UN investigators into the Jenin killings and now is busy trying to prevent such an investigation ever happening. If that were the only instance of Israeli backtracking, there might even then be some confidence in the Ramallah deal happening. But time and again Israel has “pulled out” of occupied areas, only to return a few days later. The latest volte-face is in Hebron, which Israeli troops have again entered. Nothing that Sharon promises can be trusted. He says yes to something (usually yes to something the Americans want), then does the opposite. We saw it in Colin Powell’s failed peace mission when the US secretary of state left with Israel’s promise that in two weeks at most its forces would withdraw from Palestinian Authority areas. It is not happening — and, given Sharon’s inability to break with the otherwise patently self-evidently unworkable notion that brute force can subdue the Palestinians, it is not going to happen. Such incursions will continue. His explanation for Israeli tanks going into Hebron is proof of that. They were, he says, a response to Saturday’s attack on the nearby Jewish settlement of Adora in which four Israelis were killed.
We all know that there are bound to be more such attacks, and therefore more such incursions. Freeing Arafat too does not fit in Sharon’s ideas. The Israeli premier has wanted him out of the picture for some time. He vainly imagines that he can force a new and amenable Palestinian leadership to be created. He is not going to give up that idea now. Everything therefore points to him finding a reason within a day or two why the siege in Ramallah is not going to end. If he does, no one will be surprised. All it will do is make American efforts at mediation appear even more ludicrous than at present.
