Dealing for a deal

In West Asia, what we seem to be in for at this stage is a series of agreements that could produce a final settlement, says KESAVA MENON.

THERE IS a slim chance that when the permanent settlement between Israelis and Palestinians is finally arrived at it will go unnoticed. No Israeli or Palestinian leader, and certainly not the U.S. President who will be the master of ceremonies at the agreement-signing function, is ever going to miss the photo- opportunity. But there is a chance that many in the rest of the world will miss the significance because what we seem to be in for at this stage is a series of agreements that could produce a final settlement.

The Palestinian Authority President, Mr. Yasser Arafat, returned to home territory by the end of the week after a sojourn in Washington and Cairo. By then he appeared to have accepted a U.S. compromise package, though conditionally and tentatively. That compromise package was, however, not the final deal in itself. It was to form the basis for further negotiations which would hopefully produce more agreements. If all went well, Israeli and Palestinian negotiatiors were to meet for an intensive round of discussions which could produce such agreements. Or so it was thought in the initial euphoria following Mr. Arafat's announcement of his qualified acceptance of the U.S. proposals. Just hours later, it appeared that this set of talks would not produce an agreement proper, but only a declaration of principles that would form the basis for further negotiations.

Confused? So is everyone else. Such confusion is inherent in the circumstances. All three of the principals involved in the deal- making are desperate for some sort of a deal in the next couple of weeks. The U.S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton, needs one last glorious moment on the White House lawns before he quits office on January 20 and Mr. Arafat and Mr. Ehud Barak recognise that he deserves one for all the effort he has put in on their behalf. Israel's Prime Minister needs something that will show peace is attainable before he faces his electorate on February 6. Mr. Arafat is not directly under the pressure of any deadline but he too needs to show that Palestinian aspirations are within reach so that he can persuade his people to tone down their intifada and provide an escape from the dire economic situation they are sliding into.

But, a comprehensive and detailed settlement might just not be possible within a short period. The Israelis and the Palestinians are now grappling with the nitty-gritty of the arrangements whereby they will co- exist in the future. The details can be as mundane as the alignment of a road or the location of a water main or as profound as the allocation of legal authority for holy sites. And, once settled, they will have to abide by the decisions for a long time, perhaps forever. The idea of permanent loss or gain is implicit in the negotiations to come and both sides have to also grapple with the emotions this will involve. What is more, the public on neither side has been prepared for the practical and emotional adjustments that will have to be made.

Of all the issues on the table when the negotiations began seven years ago, only the question of Palestinian statehood can be taken as more or less settled. There seems to be little doubt that Israel will accept the coming-into-being of a Palestinian state once the other issues are settled. But it is symptomatic of the tentativeness of the whole situation that even this issue has not been settled, and might never be if the other issues are not resolved. These issues - the borders of the state-to-be and the real power that will be granted to it; whether East Jerusalem (Al Quds) will be its capital; whether people who are emotionally attached to that state will be allowed to settle in Israel; the water resources that will be allocated to that state - are quite a bit closer to resolution than they were seven years ago. But an inability to reach closure on any one of them could unravel whatever else has been, or could be, achieved.

The world outside might get frustrated at this inability to make the intellectual and emotional leap required for a compromise, but for the Israelis and the Palestinians such compromises could strike at the fundamentals of their identity.

Currently, the main deal-breaker appears to be the question of Palestinian refugees; whether they will be granted ``the right of return''. As per U.N. Resolution 194 passed in 1949 those Palestinians who in 1948 were living in what became Israel are entitled to return to the homesteads they fled or were driven out of by the Israeli armed forces. They and their descendants, estimated to number nearly four million today, are living in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and elsewhere.

These refugees certainly deserve fair treatment. But there is some merit in the Israeli argument that the Arab countries that currently host the Palestinian refugees should assimilate them in the same manner as Israel absorbed the Jews who migrated from the Arab countries over the years. Israel will never agree to accept the Palestinian refugees as citizens because to do so would change the Jewish character of their state. The compromise that appears (to the outsider) reasonable, and that has been placed on the table, is that the refugees should be allowed to settle in the territories of the Palestinian state-to-be and given hefty compensation. But for the Palestinians this is a nearly impossible compromise. To give up the right of return would mean the erasure of their historical experience and their identity as a people wronged.

But if the obstacles appear insurmountable the history of the negotiations has also shown that creative solutions can be thought up. Such solutions do crop up from time to time and someone could finally string these together into a comprehensive package. Unfortunately, the one politician in the world who appears to have this gift will soon be quitting office. It appears imperative that at least the outlines of a deal are worked out before Mr. Clinton leaves the White House.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Little may change
Next     : Ghana gains