If it can dare be said after so many breakdowns, for the first time in months there is a small glimmer of hope spotted in the Middle East conflict. Israeli occupation troops have withdrawn from parts of Nablus and Ramallah to positions just outside the cities. And there has been a resumption of security talks between the Palestinians and Israelis.
Such rare signs of progress were not produced from a vacuum nor are they the product of the Palestinians or the Americans, but from a combined effort by Arafat, who has called for a complete halt to hostilities, and Hamas, which has suspended all attacks inside Israel, to seek a final peace. The United States and Israel should acknowledge this and, in turn do the following. The former should, firstly, quickly send US Middle East envoy Anthony Zinni back to the region. Since Zinni’s chances of making an impact looked doomed from the moment he arrived in the region, it is not surprising he was recalled, although he was supposedly to have stayed put no matter what, until a deal was brokered. In the three weeks Zinni was in the region, the fighting never stopped and in fact escalated dramatically. As a result, Washington’s first major Middle East peace mission under the Bush administration went nowhere and Zinni’s hasty retreat was a tacit admission by the US that its intervention — after it initially sought to minimize its involvement in the Mideast conflict — had proven woefully ineffective. But fighting has decreased, giving Zinni a chance to get the sides back on track.
As for Israel, it should realize that Arafat will not fade away and that his era has not ended. Despite Israel’s decision to sever contacts with Arafat, he is the legitimate, elected leader of the Palestinian people and a symbol of their case. He remains the symbol of the Palestinian struggle, indeed for many he is the struggle itself. As it is, Sharon, who does not hide his contempt for the Palestinian leader, has not once met Arafat since he came to office in February. But Palestinians resent this attempt to dictate who should lead them. Arafat is relevant to his people and, thus, must be seen as relevant to others. Refusing to speak to the Palestinian leadership only leads to Israel’s own international isolation.
In addition, as the minister in the largely rightist government who has shown the most willingness to maintain some sort of understanding and bridge with Arafat, Shimon Peres would be seriously thwarted by a ban on all contacts. This would more than likely jeopardize Sharon’s coalition. As recently as Thursday, Peres said he still saw Arafat as Israel’s most important negotiating partner in efforts to find a final peace, putting paid to Sharon’s claim a week earlier that there was no such man called Arafat anymore.
Peres also thought it was mistake to believe there were others who were more ready to talk peace, a direct reference to Sharon, who would like nothing better than to sit with somebody willing to negotiate partial agreements even if the most contentious issues, like Jerusalem’s future, the contours of a Palestinian state and the right of return of refugees, stay unresolved.
The week’s developments in the direction of normalcy should delude no one. While the Israeli troops backed off somewhat from Nablus and Ramallah, they called the move a tactical rearrangement and still remain ominously poised, just 300 meters from Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah. Army blockades on other Palestinian towns remained in place. Israeli described the security talks as promising, but Palestinian officials said they were a dialogue of the deaf. Discussing Israeli security to the exclusion of all else has become the recognized international priority, all the more reason why Israel and the United States must take positive steps in parallel with those of the Palestinians if the slow progress is to continue.
