No alternative but deal with Arafat

by Musa Keilani

Remember "Har Homa", the Israeli settlement project that was in the headlines in the late 1990s? We have not seen much in the media about it recently, but recent reports are indicating that the project is slated for expansion further than what was earlier planned and the ground is being set to add another 5,000 housing units for settlers in the area.

All access roads to the site are cut off, except from the Israeli-controlled side. Palestinian residents there have been told to be ready to move elsewhere in the West Bank. Similar projects are under way in and around most other settlements in the West Bank. No one knows for sure when people will be told to move out.

There are many "Har Homas" in the West Bank. We hear little about them since the media are too preoccupied with other developments and they are part of the Israeli policy of "fait accompli", which creates physical facts on the ground that become too difficult to be countered.

The best weapon Israel is using to cut off the territory from the rest of the West Bank is its "security" or "apartheid" or "separation" wall. Many things are happening behind the wall that cuts off a large chunk of the West Bank. Villagers will be displaced. Families will be separated. Farmers will be cut off from their farmlands. The West Bank will become truncated, making it impossible for the Palestinians to realise their dream of an independent state. That is where the present course of events is taking us.

With the Labour Party rallying behind him, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is set to advance his unilateral disengagement plan. No one is objecting to Sharon's decision to quit the Gaza Strip. We had known for long that Sharon, or any other Israeli government leader for that matter, would want a way out of Gaza sooner or later, since the coastal strip is too difficult to be managed.

Many states have their reservations over the way Sharon plans his military withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. We know that he will do it in such a way that will leave the Palestinians in Gaza vying for control of the territory. It will pit groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad against the Palestinian National Authority or its remnants and keep them preoccupied with Gaza while Sharon implements the next phase of his plan for annexing other parts of the West Bank.

In any event, it seems certain that Sharon will go ahead with his plan, with the world unable to do anything about it, given the US protection that Israel enjoys.

It is against this background that we should consider Yasser Arafat's statement reaffirming that he is ready to recognise Israel as a "Jewish state". Indeed, the statement is widely interpreted as an effort to placate Sharon to accept Arafat as a partner. Moreover, it is an implicit acceptance of a compromise over the rights of the Palestinian refugees. Arafat is reported to have said that the Palestine Liberation Organisation dropped an Arab summit resolution calling for a just solution of the Palestinian refugee problem based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

It is possible that Arafat might disown the statement later, in view of the criticism it has just drawn from other Palestinian leaders. However, it cannot be denied that today, some compromise has to be made over the refugee issue. At the same time, dropping Resolution 194 as the basis for a compromise is highly dangerous. Many recognise the fact that a return of the refugees to their ancestral land is not feasible because of the realities on the ground there. The option that is available under Resolution 194 is compensation for the refugees. That option should be highlighted and thrust forward to ensure that the refugees and the host countries do receive compensation for their lost property and toil. Abandoning Resolution 194 altogether means abandoning the option of compensation, which an overwhelming majority among the refugees prefer, as surveys have indicated.

One could understand Arafat's anxiety to regain the initiative in the diplomatic quest for peace. His reaffirmation that he was willing to recognise the Jewish character of Israel is aimed at shaking the status quo and an effort at exploring the possibility of denting Sharon's refusal to deal with him as the leader of the Palestinian people.

No doubt, Arafat could also be betting that Labour leader Shimon Peres - his old friend and "partner in peace" - might be able to persuade Sharon to amend his position. Since Sharon has to depend on Labour for survival as prime minister, there might be a possibility that Peres might succeed in convincing him that no peace could be worked out if Arafat were to be kept out of the process.

Time is running out; Arafat had to make a move, and he did it. Whether Sharon will apply restraint to his "Har Homa" bandwagon and reconsider his rejection of Arafat remains to be seen.

The Israeli prime minister has to realise that if he is interested in genuine peace, and since all other efforts have ended up in deadlock, he has to deal with Arafat, however mercurial, unpredictable, back stabbing and dubious he might be, according to the Likud terminology.

This article was originally published in the Sunday, June 20, 2004 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.