FrontPage

Nation

World

Media

Culture

Technology

Commentary

Palestinian Statehood Delayed -- Israel News Digest

David Dolan, Christian Friends of Israel, Jerusalem
October 2000

Palestinian officials postponed their long-anticipated statehood declaration in September, but only until the end of 2000 at the latest. The short delay came as sporadic peace talks sputtered along in the United States and Israel. Palestinian and Israeli negotiators publicly agreed on only one thing: Time is fast running out to reach a final peace accord. Amid widespread predictions that the two sides will fail to secure a full peace pact this year, Prime Minister Ehud Barak began implementing his controversial "civil reform" program in an attempt to rebuild his shattered coalition government.

After the Camp David summit ended in failure in late July, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat found himself in an extremely uncomfortable and unfamiliar position. Ever since the election of Binyamin Netanyahu in 1996, the feisty PLO chief had become accustomed to being the recipient of immense international sympathy and support. In the eyes of most governments and the international press, it was the "intransigent Israelis" that were preventing progress in the moribund peace process. Arafat could sit back and rest in the knowledge that the world would not blame him for the continuing failure to reach a final accord.

After Camp David, Arafat’s inflexibility could not be hidden any longer. Most world leaders concurred with Bill Clinton that PM Barak had agreed to "painful concessions" at the summit -- concessions that went way beyond what most people expected both in Israel and abroad. Indeed, his compromises over Jerusalem were so far-reaching that they were even denounced in September by Leah Rabin, who said her late assassinated husband must be "spinning in his grave" over them. Shimon Peres -- one of the main Oslo ac-cord architects -- also questioned Barak’s concessions, saying he should not have surrendered so much ground on Jerusalem.

In sharp contrast, Yasser Arafat said he would rather starve than accept anything less than the whole pie. He wanted Barak to hand over nearly every inch of territory that Israeli forces captured from Jordan in 1967, including the walled Old City of Jerusalem with its sacred Temple Mount. The fact that over 33 years have passed since the Six-Day war, and that many things have changed on the ground, mattered little to him. The Palestinians were the aggrieved party, Arafat insisted, and would therefore never waive any of their "internationally recognized rights."

One of those perceived "rights" was the pre-announced decision to declare an independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, on September 13. Arafat felt justified in making a unilateral declaration despite his Oslo commitment to negotiate the establishment and contours of such a state with Israel. After all, he had already twice put off his declaration at the request of Israeli and international leaders. It was "Israeli intransigence" that had forced the earlier de- lays, he charged. Barak’s stubborn refusal to bend all the way to the dust at Camp David was the real reason for the summit’s failure, he maintained, and therefore no reason remained to delay his one-sided statehood announcement.

In an unusual twist, international leaders and media outlets generally saw through Arafat’s charade. They understood that Barak had gone way beyond the Israeli consensus regarding Jerusalem at Camp David, adding to the pre-summit collapse of his coalition government. Arafat, on the other hand, had barely budged from his bombastic "all, or nothing at all" public positions. If anyone was holding up a final accord, it was the aging Palestinian leader. With this fact fairly clear to all, there was little international support or enthusiasm for a unilateral September 13 statehood declaration that would provoke an unwanted Israeli response and probably spell the end of the negotiating process.

When Arafat finally understood that the nations were no longer handing him a blank check, and that a unilateral declaration would cause far more problems than it would solve, he arranged for his PLO Central Council to postpone the statehood declaration, but only for a few months. In true Arab fashion, the PLO officials, who met in Gaza City, did not actually announce that they were putting off the declaration. Instead, they proclaimed that "preparations for a sovereign state are being stepped up." They indicated that statehood will be formally proclaimed when they meet again on November 15, or by the end of 2000 at the latest. In the meantime, they voted to start issuing Palestinian passports, to negotiate trade and customs agreements with neighboring Arab states, to secure a full seat for "Palestine" at the United Nations and to finalize and implement a state constitution.

WORLD REACTION

Frustrated Palestinian politicians and editorial writers mostly blamed the United States for the delay, charging that President Clinton had strong-armed Arab and world leaders to help him thwart a unilateral declaration. Arafat maintained that the alleged American pressure reflected Clinton’s "one-sided support for the Zionist state" at Camp David. Faisal Husseini, the Palestinian Authority’s "Minister for Jerusalem," accused the US of being a "biased broker that often defends the Israeli position even more than Barak does."

Despite the harsh criticism, American officials welcomed the statehood postponement and urged the two sides to redouble efforts to reach a final status accord in the coming weeks. Similar statements came out of Paris, Moscow, London and Berlin. Apart from Syria, Arab governments remained silent over the delay. Egyptian and Jordanian leaders were said to be happy that the peace process did not come unglued over a unilateral statehood declaration.

Prime Minister Barak hailed the PLO decision as a "positive sign" that the Palestinians wish to arrive at an overall peace settlement in the near future. However, he cautioned that he had yet to see any real change in Arafat’s uncompromising Camp David positions on Jerusalem. "It takes two to tango," he told reporters after the PLO meeting adjourned, adding, "If peace is possible, we will do our best to achieve it. If not, we will know in a few weeks."

Several Israeli commentators -- probably reflecting the private opinions of various right-wing politicians -- said they were actually sorry that Arafat had backed away from his statehood proclamation. The postponement has only served to put the Palestinian leader back on the moral high road, they wrote, guaranteeing greater international support when statehood is finally declared later this year. If he had gone against the world’s wishes and unilaterally established a state, Israel would have been free to annex many parts of Judea, Samaria and the strategic Jordan Valley, along with Jewish-inhabited sections of the Gaza Strip. This would have left far more land in Israeli hands than any final accord will do, they maintained. However, some commentators doubted that Barak would have actually gone through with his veiled threat to annex the desired areas given the predictable torrent of protests it would have unleashed from the Israeli left and from world capitals.

BLEAK PROSPECTS

Analysts warned that if no breakthrough is achieved by mid-October, the peace process will probably go into a dangerous deep freeze for some time. They said the current "window of opportunity" will probably close for three reasons: 1) The US Congress adjourns October 6 for several months, meaning it could not approve any American financial aid package until around next February at the earliest, 2) Lame duck President Clinton will probably disengage from the process in the final weeks before the November 7 US national elections, and stay relatively disengaged during the waning days of his presidency, and 3) The Israeli Knesset will reconvene after the Jewish holidays and probably vote to dissolve itself and go to early elections. Of course, even if American legislators were in session after October 6, and if their Israeli counterparts were not expected to vote on an early elections bill late in the month, there is no guarantee that either body would approve any expensive and controversial final peace deal.

It is not just time constraints that are standing in the path of an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. September statements by both Arafat and Barak showed that the two leaders remained far apart on several key issues, including Jerusalem, settlements and refugees.

The Palestinian leader -- who accused the ultra-secular Barak in early September of plotting to build a third Jewish temple on the Temple Mount -- insists that his Camp David "offer" to allow continued Israeli control over the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter, but not over any other portion of the "occupied" Old City or Temple Mount, was the height of generosity. In framing things this way, he ignores the indisputable fact that the holy city has never been under local "Palestinian" sovereignty, but has instead been ruled from Cairo, Baghdad, Istanbul, London and Amman, among other places.

In his September 6 United Nations speech in New York, and in subsequent statements, the PLO chief only noted Islamic and Christian connections to Jerusalem, pretending that the Jewish people are aggressive colonial interlopers with no historic, emotional or religious links to the city. In doing so, he continued a long-standing Arab practice of totally rejecting any legitimate Jewish attachment to Israel’s ancient biblical heartland -- a selfish and absurd rejection that directly resulted in the bitter 1948 and 1967 wars with their large Palestinian refugee flights.

In sharp contrast to Arafat, Ehud Barak told the UN assembly that Israel fully recognizes that Jerusalem -- Judaism’s most hallowed site for over 3,000 years -- "is also sacred to Muslims and Christians the world over, and cherished by our Palestinian neighbors." He added that a final peace accord will "reflect all of these bonds." Later in September, Acting Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami elaborated on this theme during a UN speech: "Just as we do not question the sincerity of the sentiments of others toward their holy sites in Jerusalem, we expect that others will not question the Jewish people’s deep and awesome attachment to Jerusalem and its holy sites -- from which we will never again be parted."

FOOLISH NATIONS RUSH IN?

Meanwhile, Pope John Paul II stated once again in September that the Vatican wishes to see the entire Old City placed under some form of international control. The pontiff insisted that only "international guarantees and a special status" will insure the rights of all who look to Jerusalem as a holy city. Analysts say the Vatican prefers UN administration over either Israeli or Palestinian control, believing this will increase the church’s influence in Jerusalem since many UN nations have sizable or majority Roman Catholic populations. Indeed, the largely Catholic country of France has endorsed the idea of transferring control of the Temple Mount to the UN Security Council, on which it has a permanent seat. Israeli officials indicated that they will seriously consider any such proposal involving the world body, but Arafat’s spokesman initially rejected the idea. In a related development, Palestinian leaders revealed that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has pledged to send UN forces to patrol border areas between Israel and the emerging Palestinian State.

While Arafat was making his Islamic sovereignty suggestion, his subordinates were backtracking on other Camp David positions. Senior Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurei said Arafat will not allow Israel to keep control of any settlements in the pre-1967 West Bank. According to both Israeli and American sources, Arafat had earlier accepted President Clinton’s suggestion that some settlement blocks around Jerusalem and east of Netanya be placed under formal Israeli sovereignty. Under the plan, Israel would make up for the lost land by ceding an equal or even greater amount of its pre-1967 territory to Arafat’s state. The transferred land would probably be adjacent to the crowded Gaza Strip. Acting Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel’s chief negotiator, confirmed that the Palestinians had withdrawn the Camp David concession. "We understand that they agreed to leave 80% of Jewish settlers in several clusters on the West Bank, but now we hear different numbers," he said.

In a further retreat, Palestinian officials are again demanding that Israel take full moral, legal and financial responsibility for the 1948 and 1967 Palestinian refugee flights, even though both occurred during wars initiated by the Arab side. Ben-Ami flatly rejected the Palestinian demand, saying Israel believes "it is the Palestinian state that should provide for the vindication of the refugee’s claim for the right of return." He added that it would be "national suicide" for Israel to accept un-limited numbers of refugees into its borders, or to take on enormous financial burdens associated with them. "We want peace, but we are not lunatics," he concluded.

BURSTING BUBBLE

Three recent developments have left Israeli leaders particularly concerned about the immediate days ahead. One was the botched late-August army attempt to capture Hamas terrorist leader Abu Hanoud. The failed raid -- in which Israeli soldiers mistakenly shot and killed three of their comrades while letting Abu Hanoud slip through their fingers -- has led to a further deterioration in the army’s credibility in the eyes of the Arab masses. The second worrisome development is growing disquiet among Israel’s minority Arab population, demonstrated by a mass anti-government rally in September. The third development concerns hostile rhetoric coming out of Baghdad and Damascus.

Widely perceived as having fled in haste from Lebanon in the face of a rapid Hizbullah advance, the once-feared Israeli army is now pictured as virtually incapable of carrying out even a relatively simple operation. Abu Hanoud’s escape to the Arafat-controlled town of Nablus is still being hailed by many Palestinians as a great victory for the Arab cause, and a severe humiliation for the "Zionist aggressors." The fact that a Palestinian court rapidly sentenced the terrorist leader to 12 years in jail has not lessened public support for him, according to Arab press reports. (Showing contempt for Israel, Abu Hanoud was not even charged with master-minding two 1997-suicide attacks in Jerusalem that left 21 people dead. Instead, he was imprisoned for "disturbing public order" by establishing an illegal military organization). Many Palestinian and Israeli commentators say they expect the terrorist leader to be released after a token year or two in jail.

JOIN PARTY

In the past few years, various Arab politicians have publicly called upon their supporters to burn Israeli flags, back Hizbullah’s "just resistance" in southern Lebanon, and similar items. But never before have they openly called for actual violence against Israeli security personnel. The Attorney General has now opened an investigation of Knesset Member Muhammad Barakei, charged with encouraging Arabs to attack police in the Galilee region who were demolishing illegally-built homes. The investigation was denounced by other Arab legislators, with one calling for policemen’s "arms and legs to be broken" in any future confrontations. Israeli officials say thousands of homes are illegally erected each year in the Arab sector, with some also rising without permit in Jewish communities. Although both are subject to court-ordered destruction, Arab leaders say their sector bears the brunt of the demolitions.

Israeli analysts say the unprecedented statements highlight the growing possibility that many Israeli Arabs would actively support their Palestinian cohorts if another uprising breaks out. Such a possibility was more or less stated during a huge rally in the Arab town of Umm el-Fahm on September 15. Islamic speakers used fiery language as they hotly denounced perceived discrimination against the Arab minority, and warned of severe consequences if government policy does not immediately change.

Unbridled Syrian hatred and hostility against Israel was horribly demonstrated during the month when a state-controlled newspaper claimed that the Nazi holocaust never took place. It said the "alleged existence" of Nazi gas chambers was a "fictitious Israeli invention" that was part of a "myth designed to blackmail the world into supporting Zionist aggression." Hitler’s genocidal slaughter of millions of Jews and others "only existed in the minds of Israeli terrorists like Yitzhak Shamir and Ovadia Yosef" claimed the article. Responding for the government, Israeli cabinet minister Michael Melchior said, "Syrian incitement has passed all boundaries, both morally and politically, making it very difficult to continue a discourse with them."

While Damascus hurled its stinking verbal volleys at the world’s only Jewish State, officials kept a close eye on the horizon lest Iraqi missiles come crashing down once again. The increased vigilance came after Saddam Hussein issued new threats against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other regional countries. American officials placed a Patriot anti-missile battery on alert in case Saddam’s war-like words are transformed into deeds. They are worried that the Iraqi dictator may take advantage of Bill Clinton’s waning days in office to fire rockets at Israel and/or other US allies. At the same time, Israel successfully conducted the last test of the strategic Arrow anti-missile defense shield in September. A Scud-type missile was targeted and destroyed in flight by an Arrow rocket. The sophisticated US-funded system has already been deployed around the especially vulnerable Tel Aviv area.

BLUE BARAK

Slipping further in popularity polls, the Israeli leader had hoped to return from New York and stitch together a new coalition government. Instead, he still finds himself with only 30 active Knesset supporters, a mere one-fourth of the legislative body. With the launching of his explosive civil reform program, the 17 Shas members are out for good, along with all other religious legislators. The 10 Meretz politicians are still officially on the inside, but just. Even his "One Israel" alliance partners -- Michael Melchior’s Meimad religious faction and David Levy’s Gesher -- cannot be counted on to support his reform agenda if it is deemed too radical.

Sensing that elections are nearing, and with polls predicting they will pick up at least 4 seats from Barak’s Labor party, Meretz leaders have decided to stay away from the cabinet table for now. The anti-Orthodox Shinui party -- projected to capture 3 or 4 Labor seats if elections are held in the coming months -- is also refusing to jump on board Barak’s obviously sinking ship. Support from the Knesset’s 10 Arab party members is a dubious prospect at best, along with the idea of having the opposition Likud party join a broad national unity government. Analysts say that at this juncture, only Yasser Arafat can save Barak’s skin by agreeing to a reasonable peace accord that would pass muster with a majority of Israeli voters. Not many pundits are holding their breath over this possibility.

With internal Labor party polls showing a loss of at least eight Knesset seats -- leaving the once mighty party with a paltry 15 representatives -- Barak must do everything in his power to shore up his core base of left-leaning supporters. Analysts say that explains his rush to enact a bevy of "civil reforms." Already the Premier has ordered that religious affiliation be dropped from Israeli identity cards, that El Al fly on the Jewish Sabbath, and that the Religious Affairs ministry be quickly abolished. Such moves are extremely popular with most secular voters, especially Russian immigrants, who resent perceived Orthodox encroachment on their daily lives. Many point to moves by some rabbis to enforce stricter dietary laws during the just-beginning shmitta, or agricultural sabbatical year, as a fresh example of such unwanted interference.

PLAGUES AND PROMISES

While heavy winter rains may or may not come, we are told by the prophet Joel that the God of Israel will pour out His Holy Spirit on His dry and thirsty land -- and on the rest of this sin-weary planet -- at some point in these tumultuous latter days. May the moment come soon when that promise is fulfilled, resulting in salvation for many: "And it will come about that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, as the Lord has said, even among the survivors whom the Lord will call." (Joel 2:32)

Search the Web.

Apocalypse Code
by Hal Lindsey
The Prophet Daniel predicted there would come a time -- just before the return of the Messiah -- in which man's knowledge would be greatly increased. In this riveting book, the father of modern-day Bible prophecy cracks the "Apocalypse Code" and deciphers long-hidden messages about the fate of the Earth.