The Hindu : West Asia: Towards a two-state solution

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Nov 03, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

West Asia: Towards a two-state solution

By Chinmaya R. Gharekhan

The seminar on the Middle East brought out the understanding, which the Palestinians and the Israelis have for each other.

IN THESE dark, dismal and dangerous days in West Asia, it sounds surrealistic to even talk about a dialogue, let alone prospects for peace. Yet it was precisely to keep alive even a glimmer of hope that the Department of Public Information, United Nations, organised an international seminar on peace in the Middle East under the title: "Towards a Two-State Solution", on October 21 and 22. The seminar was appropriately held in Seville, capital of the Andalusian region of Spain, where three cultures — Jewish, Christian and Islamic — co-existed for over 700 years from the 7th century. It brought together high-level Israeli and Palestinian representatives as well as the media from about 15 countries. The Government of Israel was not represented; it has been boycotting such events for the simple reason that they are organised by the U.N., which is perceived by Israel as anti-Israel, forgetting that Israel owes its legitimacy to the world organisation.

Official Israeli non-participation meant that the meeting became largely a dialogue among believers in a two-state solution based on Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 which, to all participants, meant the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The prevalence of this consensus, however, did not render the discussions dull. Nabil Shaath, Foreign Minister, Ghassan Khattib, a former Minister, and Ahmad Soboh represented the Palestinian side. The Israeli side was equally impressive: Avraham Burg, former Knesset speaker, Shlomo Ben Ami, former Foreign Minister, Daniel Ben Simon, columnist of the leading daily, Haaretz. The U.N. was represented by Shashi Tharoor, Under Secretary General in-charge of DPI, and Terje Larsen, Special Coordinator for Middle East peace process. The statements of the Israelis, perhaps because they are currently not in office, but also out of conviction, were remarkably candid and understanding of the other side's aspirations and concerns.

There was unanimity at the seminar that a two-state solution, with Israel and an economically and geographically viable Palestine, existing side by side within secure and recognised borders, was the only answer. Let alone the Israelis, not a single Palestinian advocated a bi-national state.

The Seville seminar coincided with the announcement of the Geneva Accords, which were signed in Jordan just a week earlier between Yossi Beillin, a former Justice Minister in the Barak Government and a person of remarkable moral courage, and Yasser Abd Rabbo, Information Minister in the Palestinian Authority. The Geneva Accords are a detailed blueprint for the solution of the thorny final status issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, and borders. They have been arrived at after 30 months of confidential negotiations between the parties and reflect a genuine spirit of give and take. As for the road map, which was the reason for the seminar, there was scepticism. However, Ambassador Moratinos, who was the European Union's special envoy for the Middle East until July this year, made a strong case in support of the road map. He pointed out the road map laid down specific destinations, unlike Oslo, which did not impose concrete obligations on the parties. He also said that the Americans had made a mistake by monopolising the stage in Aqaba in June 2003, ignoring other members of the Quartet.

The relevance or otherwise of Yasser Arafat inevitably came in for considerable discussion. The Israeli delegates said categorically that Mr. Arafat was a duly elected leader of the Palestinian Authority and that Israel had no right to tell the Palestinians who their leader should be. There was nonetheless a feeling that Mr. Arafat could certainly help his Prime Minister in various ways. Mr. Moratinos struck the right balance; Mr. Arafat, he said, had been in jail for nearly two years and was understandably bitter. While Mr. Arafat was a part of the problem, he undeniably was a big part of the solution also.

In an eloquent speech, Shlomo Ben Ami, who was the chief Israeli negotiator at Taba in January 2001, where the two sides came very close to agreement, said that it was not realistic to expect the Palestinians to fight a civil war with their brethren in Hamas and Jihad unless they knew beforehand what they would be fighting for. In other words, the Palestinians must have a clear idea of the framework of the final settlement before they can take the tough decisions the Israelis expect them to.

Avraham Burg, another impressive figure, felt that Mr. Arafat had lost the confidence of the peace camp in Israel; he had destroyed the unity of command and many Israelis had voted for Ariel Sharon against Mr. Arafat. The last speaker in the seminar was Mustapha Barghouti, founder of a dissident movement in the West Bank. He might have spoken for a significant section of the Palestinian society. His thesis was two-fold: Do not treat the Palestinians as part of the Arab world that had done precious little for the Palestinian cause all these decades; and, negotiations with Israel should take place only after fresh Palestinian elections.

The seminar brought out the understanding, which the two peoples have for each other, the similarity of approach and the willingness of each to accommodate the concerns of the other. However, it would be a grave error to ignore the real and deep suspicions among them, as well as the fears that each side has of the other. There is no end in sight to the cycle of suicide bombings and targeted killings. The Geneva Accords and the discussions in Seville demonstrate, however, that there is no dearth of people of goodwill on both sides.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Mahathir's impressive legacy

An economic axis of the future

Implications of the LTTE proposals

West Asia: Towards a two-state solution