;)
TLANTA � In January 1996, with full support
from Israel and responding to the invitation of the Palestinian Liberation
Organization, the Carter Center helped to monitor a democratic election in
the West Bank and Gaza, which was well organized, open and fair. In that
election, 88 members were elected to the Palestinian National Authority,
with Yasir Arafat as president. Legally and practically, the Palestinian
people were encouraged to form their own government, with the expectation
that they would soon have full sovereignty as a state.
When the election was over, I made a strong effort to persuade the
leaders of Hamas to accept the election results, with Mr. Arafat as their
leader. I relayed a message offering them full participation in the
process of developing a permanent constitutional framework for the new
political entity, but they refused to accept this proposal. Despite this
rejection, it was a time of peace and hope, and there was no threat of
violence or even peaceful demonstrations. The legal status of the
Palestinian people has not changed since then, but their plight has grown
desperate.
Ariel Sharon is a strong and forceful man and has never equivocated in
his public declarations nor deviated from his ultimate purpose. His
rejection of all peace agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from
Arab lands, his invasion of Lebanon, his provocative visit to the Temple
Mount, the destruction of villages and homes, the arrests of thousands of
Palestinians and his open defiance of President George W. Bush's demand
that he comply with international law have all been orchestrated to
accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as widely
as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a
cohesive political existence.
There is adequate blame on the other side. Even when he was free and
enjoying the full trappings of political power, Yasir Arafat never exerted
control over Hamas and other radical Palestinians who reject the concept
of a peaceful Israeli existence and adopt any means to accomplish their
goal. Mr. Arafat's all-too-rare denunciations of violence have been
spasmodic, often expressed only in English and likely insincere. He may
well see the suicide attacks as one of the few ways to retaliate against
his tormentors, to dramatize the suffering of his people, or as a means
for him, vicariously, to be a martyr.
Tragically, the policies of Mr. Sharon have greatly strengthened these
criminal elements, enhanced their popular support, and encouraged
misguided young men and women to sacrifice their own lives in attacking
innocent Israeli citizens. The abhorrent suicide bombings are also
counterproductive in that they discredit the Palestinian cause, help
perpetuate the military occupation and destruction of villages, and
obstruct efforts toward peace and justice.
The situation is
not hopeless. There is an ultimate avenue to peace in the implementation
of United Nations resolutions, including Resolution 242, expressed most
recently in the highly publicized proposal of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince
Abdullah. The basic premises of these resolutions are withdrawal of
Israelis from Palestinian lands in exchange for full acceptance of Israel
and Israel's right to live in peace. This is a reasonable solution for
many Israelis, having been accepted in 1978 by Prime Minister Menachem
Begin and ratified by the Israeli Knesset. Egypt, offering the greatest
threat to Israel, responded by establishing full diplomatic relations and
honoring Israeli rights, including unimpeded use of the Suez canal. This
set a pattern for what can and must be done by all other Arab nations.
Through constructive negotiations, both sides can consider some
modifications of the 1967 boundary lines.
East Jerusalem can be jointly administered with unimpeded access to
holy places, and the right of return can be addressed by permitting a
limited number of displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland with
fair compensation to others. It will be a good investment for the
international community to pay this cost.
With the ready and potentially unanimous backing of the international
community, the United States government can bring about such a solution to
the existing imbroglio. Demands on both sides should be so patently fair
and balanced that at least a majority of citizens in the affected area
will respond with approval, and an international force can monitor
compliance with agreed peace terms, as was approved for the Sinai region
in 1979 following Israel's withdrawal from Egyptian territory.
There are two existing factors that offer success to United States
persuasion. One is the legal requirement that American weapons are to be
used by Israel only for defensive purposes, a premise certainly being
violated in the recent destruction of Jenin and other villages. Richard
Nixon imposed this requirement to stop Ariel Sharon and Israel's military
advance into Egypt in the 1973 war, and I used the same demand to deter
Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1979. (A full invasion was launched by Ariel
Sharon after I left office). The other persuasive factor is approximately
$10 million daily in American aid to Israel. President George Bush Sr.
threatened this assistance in 1992 to prevent the building of Israeli
settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using
persuasion on the Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of
the actions toward peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign
territory of Israel. They all involve lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and
Palestinians, as recognized by international law.
The existing situation is tragic and likely to get worse. Normal
diplomatic efforts have failed. It is time for the United States, as the
sole recognized intermediary, to consider more forceful action for peace.
The rest of the world will welcome this leadership.
Jimmy Carter, the former president, is chairman of the Carter
Center, which works worldwide to advance peace and human
health.
printlogo.gif
a.gif