Back to the trenches

The present conflict originating in Israeli leader Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Wailing Wall near the Al Aqsa mosque early in October has resulted in nearly 150 deaths and several thousand injured.

Though there have been sporadic violence, interaction between the PLO and the Israelis was continuing since their Oslo and Madrid meetings in the early 1990s. Arafat and his government returned to Gaza. A Palestinian authority came into existence with jurisdiction over several Palestinian areas. The predications on which Arafat returned to Gaza, namely, that a comprehensive peace settlement will be arrived at, that Israel will desist from settlements on the West Bank and even dismantle some of them, that the status of Jerusalem will be resolved by negotiations, keeping minimum Palestinian aspirations in mind, have not been fulfilled despite several bilateral meetings between Arafat on the one hand, the Israeli Prime Ministers Nitanyahu and Barak on the other. Several meetings held under the umbrella of President Clinton also did not bring about any concrete result.

Arafat had planned to declare the coming to being of an independent Palestinian state on September 15 within the framework of the long drawn out discussions of over a decade but both Israel and the US blocked him from taking this decision. Objectively speaking, leaving aside Israeli and US reservations about the creation of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state, and Israel’s reluctance about dismantling some of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank and about conceding any specific concession on Jerusalem, Barak apparently put on the table a fairly good package of proposals about improving conditions in the refugee camps, about not allowing Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas and about economic assistance to the Palestinian authority. But this was not sufficient to meet the fundamental expectations of the PLO and the Palestinian people which they had entertained on the basis of the previous rounds of negotiations.

Memories about personalities have vitiated the situation. Sharon as the chief of the Israeli Army is imprinted in the collective memory of the Palestinian people as the person who attacked the refugee camps at Sabra and Shatilla, which resulted in the death of nearly 7,000 Palestinians. Barak himself had opposed the Oslo accord in 1993 and had continued to vote against a number of agreements between 1995 and till he came to power, between Israelis and Palestinians. The PLO perception is that Barak was indulging in stratagems to delay the final settlement. This is not quite true because he is the first Israeli PM who agreed to discuss the status of Jerusalem with Palestinians.

The ramifications of the violent events have been far-reaching. There has been massive public support for the Palestinian cause amongst the Muslim countries, particularly among the Arab countries. After a period of nearly a decade Israel again faces prospects of isolation and insularity born of antagonism amongst all its neighbouring countries.

Though Arafat and Barak were present at Sharm-el-Sheikh, they did not meet each other or had any direct discussion. The declaration made there states that an international fact-finding body would be set up to investigate the cause of the violence. Preceding this Barak and Arafat will order their forces to stop firing at each other and would take steps to stop Jewish settlements, and Palestinian militia firing at civilians on each side. Arafat has been requested to take steps to prevent violent agitation and attacks by Palestinian youth against Israeli border forces. Israel is to redeploy its troops, withdraw its helicopter and armour away from Palestinian settlements and refugee camps. All this is to be done in about a month’s time by which period a fact-finding mission will commence its work.The implementation of these decisions remain uncertain.

To move on to an assessment of India’s role in this conflict, for the first time both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat wrote to Prime Minister Vajpayee seeking India’s assistance in resolving the crisis. India’s official response has not been made public. The political significance of India receiving this communication is that both sides believe in India’s credibility as an impartial interlocutor. Arafat feels that India can be a factor in persuading Israel to pull back from excessive violence.

Barak feels that given good relations between the two countries and the mutual benefit derived therefrom, India as an old friend of PLO could persuade Arafat to return to the negotiating table. External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has indicated that India would be willing to engage in bilateral discussions with Israel on the one hand and PLO and Arab countries on the other, as well as with the US, to further the process started at Sharm-el-Sheikh. Jaswant Singh has rightly pointed out that US and Egypt are already mediating, so India does not have to get involved in any formal mediatory role.

There should be no question of our supporting the perceptions and advocacies of either side. Our reactions should be primarily governed by our general commitment to fulfill all the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and more importantly by our vital national and strategic interests. Israel should also become aware of the fact that in the long term its survival depends on avoiding isolation and coming to terms with the PLO.

BlurbØOur reactions should be primarily governed by our general commitment to fulfill all the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian peopleØ