POLITICS-MIDEAST: Israel-Palestinian Summit Collapses

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Jul 26 2000 (IPS) - Two weeks of intensive talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders at the US presidential retreat at Camp David collapsed Tuesday, as Bill Clinton proved unable to bridge critical gaps, particularly on the fate of Jerusalem.

A clearly exhausted and disappointed Clinton emerged at noon to tell reporters that he had not achieved a final peace agreement as he had hoped, but stressed that “significant progress” had been made on core issues which Israeli and Palestinian leaders had never before addressed in formal negotiations.

“Though the differences that remain are deep,” Clinton said, “they have come a long way in the last seven years, and notwithstanding the failure to reach an agreement, they made real headway in the last two weeks.”

He also indicated that he will not give up on the effort. “I believe because of the work that was done within both teams and what they did with each other, we can still do it,” he said, noting, however, that “we don’t have a lot of time.”

Clinton described Jerusalem as “the most difficult issue” and singled out Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak for making “some very bold decisions.” But he also credited Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat with moving forward.

For their parts, Barak and Arafat blamed each other for the outcome, although both signed a joint statement pledging to continue negotiations and avoid violence and any unilateral moves that could disrupt the process.

“We cannot lose hope,” Barak told a later press conference. “The vision of peace suffered a major blow, but, with goodwill on all sides, it could recuperate,” he said, adding, “Unfortunately, Arafat somehow hesitated to take the strong decisions that were needed … Both sides have to work together in order to prevent a deterioration towards violence.”

The talks, which were intended to cap the seven-year Oslo peace process with an accord settling the most difficult “final status” issues, including borders, Jerusalem’s status, and the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to homes lost to Israel in 1948 and again in 1967, were convened after Clinton became convinced that lower-level negotiations between the two sides had reached a stalemate.

Without the two leaders taking on these potentially “deal- breaking” issues, Clinton felt the situation could only deteriorate, particularly given the fragility of Barak’s ruling coalition and Arafat’s growing determination to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state as of Sep. 13, seven years after the Oslo process was formally launched.

Clinton deliberately chose Camp David as the venue, not only because it was easier to impose a news blackout on the talks, but also to recall for both leaders the historic agreement reached there between Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin 22 years ago.

The two weeks of talks clearly had their ups and downs. Late last week, Clinton repeatedly delayed a trip to Japan for the annual Group of Seven summit meeting of the major industrialised powers in order to continue working with the parties and then appealed to both teams to stay at Camp David over the weekend until he could return for a final assessment. The US delegation was particularly active, often offering “bridging proposals” to narrow or overcome differences on key issues.

In the end, however, that was not sufficient to reach a resolution on the critical issue of Jerusalem. And, as Clinton noted Tuesday, “under the operating rules, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

Nonetheless, both sides appeared to make important and unprecedented concessions which could make an eventual agreement, even over Jerusalem, possible. The Palestinians reportedly agreed to recognise full Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem for the first time. And Barak put forward a series of proposals for “shared sovereignty” over parts of East Jerusalem, a departure from Israel’s historic insistence that the city remain undivided under Israeli sovereignty.

In the end, however, the gap could not be bridged. Arafat reportedly refused to consider any deal that fell short of full Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem with the exception of the Jewish quarter and the Western Wall of the old temple, Judaism’s holiest site. At the same time, Barak refused to commit himself in writing to the idea of shared sovereignty as demanded by Arafat.

Barak’s refusal appeared to be tactical, in part to protect himself from right-wing charges that he was prepared to lose parts of Jerusalem.

As he made clear in his press conference after the talks, he did not want to consider himself bound by any of the offers made by the Israeli delegation during the negotiations if and when they resume. “Ideas, opinions and even positions that were raised during the (talks) are not valid and are not a commitment as a starting point for negotiations when they are renewed.”

“Barak is going back to a boiling cauldron,” noted Rashid Khalidi, a historian at the University of Chicago and president of the American Committee on Jerusalem, a group which believes that there can be no monopoly of sovereignty by either side if a durable peace is to be achieved. “He wants to protect himself from the rabid onslaught of (right-wing) leaders who want his hide. He can put it back on the table when he starts negotiating all over again.”

Indeed, Barak got high marks for breaking the taboo on a united Jerusalem from a number of peace groups and other actors. “The fact that Jerusalem was on the table is very significant,” according to Lewis Roth, a spokesman for Americans for Peace Now, a predominantly Jewish group which has strong poehes pc.Indeed, in recent days, a number of prominent Israelis, led by support for turning over predominantly Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority.

“A major step has been taken, but there is a long way to go,” according to Khalidi. “If Israelis really want peace, they’ll havhas actually begun.”

How quickly negotiations resume is a major question, however. Both Khalidi and Roth believe that Clinton, fearing that any prolonged delay is likely to strengthen hard-line forces in both camps at Barak’s and Arafat’s expense, will push hard for a quick return to the bargaining table.

“They must find a way to resume their negotiations in the next few weeks,” Clinton said. “I think, if you ask me, did they make enough progress to get this done? Yes, but what they’ve got to do (is) go home and check; they’ve got to feel around.”