|
|
|
|
|
TITLE: The Settlements Obstacle |
AUTHOR: |
PUB: Ha'aretz |
DATE: April 29, 2001 |
|
As of now, the Jordanian-Egyptian initiative is the only proposal on the table that holds out a chance to move the political process forward. It is special because Arab states that signed peace agreements with Israel are ready to become actively involved in mediating between Israel and the Palestinians, taking Israel's interests into consideration. The prime minister, who rejected the first formulation of the proposal, now regards it as important - but not yet satisfactory. Therefore, he decided to send Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to Egypt and Jordan to persuade the initiators of the proposal to make some changes that would better serve to calm the military conflict. One of the prime minister's critical reservations about the initiative is the demand Israel absolutely freeze settlement construction, even though the plan's proponents removed Jerusalem from this demand. Israel rejects that freeze, because, it says, it would be a departure from signed agreements that allow construction of additional housing according to natural growth patterns. According to the prime minister, the rejection of that item in the proposal is also based on the national unity government's guidelines. But contradicting the prime minister's argument are data showing that thousands of empty apartments in the territories could accommodate natural growth for at least the coming two years, if there is indeed demand for the apartments. Moreover, to the extent that the signed agreements oblige the Sharon government, then both the Oslo agreement and the Wye agreement have clauses forbidding any unilateral actions that could change the status of the areas in dispute. The accepted interpretation of this clause is that it is aimed at preventing the creation of new "facts" in the settlement areas. The Jordanian-Egyptian initiative is not an attempt to replace the negotiations for a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, so the demand for a settlement freeze can not be regarded as an attempt at putting the cart before the horse. The initiative is an attempt to create a stable framework based on a mutual cease-fire, development and implementation of confidence-building measures, and the opening of negotiations that would indeed decide the fate of the settlements. An agreement to freeze settlement activity at this stage would not hinder efforts to absorb more settlers and would do nothing to change the outcome of the final agreement. But an agreement on the point could set the fate of the initiative and the chance that it will successfully replace the military campaign with a diplomatic one. The foreign minister, leaving today for Egypt and Jordan, and from there to Washington, can not justify the construction of more empty apartments as an obstacle to a cease-fire. He certainly won't find a sympathetic ear in Washington if he adopts the insistence on new settlement construction as an Israeli pre-condition for a cease-fire. END |