Home >> Middle East >> Arab-Israeli Relations

     Email   Print 

Sharm al-Sheikh Summit: Facts Speak Louder Than Words

Manuela Paraipan - 2/22/2005

The summit between PM Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas the Palestinian Authority Chairman was held in the Egyptian resort of Sharm Al-Sheikh in the presence of President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah II of Jordan. President Mubarak called for the other Arab countries to join the negotiation process. In this direction, he particularly named Syria and Lebanon. Under his patronage and with the support of the Jordanian King Abdullah, thus a team of only Arab mediators, PM Sharon and PA Chairman Abbas agreed to put an end to the violence. But, did those who are in theirs orders agree to do the same?

The Palestinian Chairman Abbas and PM Sharon announced a ceasefire with immediate effect to end more than four years of violence, although they have not signed, yet a formal agreement.

On one hand, we have Abbas who won his position during a fair electoral process. His mandate now is to end the Palestinian long term Intifada and to build a Palestinian state. On the other hand, we have Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the man who strongly and violently promoted the spread of settlements on the Palestinian land, and the man who have retaliate for every, single Israeli military or citizen who have been killed by the Palestinians. However, after decades of violent clashes he decided to change his policy. He adopted the "unilateral steps" policy of military withdrawing from Gaza Strip, plans to evict thousands of settlers from the strip and seems willing to adopt the same policy in the West Bank - but only if the Palestinians will end the terror attacks.
After the failure of the Aqaba summit, many wonder if the Sharm Al Sheikh summit will have the same fate. If, the Israeli and the Palestinians are keeping their good spirits regarding the agreement, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice urged both parties to stand by their accord without showing too much hope at this early stage of the agreement. The chances of successful diplomacy resolving this conflict remain slim - but they are there. What the sceptics' claim is the déjà vu feeling - everything we have seen at Sharm Al Sheikh happened before at Aqaba and Oslo without success.

At the summit, both leaders agreed that communication channels must be kept open between the Israeli and the Palestinians. The best way to achieve it is to stop the violent clashes and to start paving the way for the implementation of the so-called "Road Map". The summit is an opportunity that cannot be missed by either party. It is a case of now or never. Arafat's death, the Prime Minister Sharon willingness to start the negotiations with the new Palestinian leadership, Mahmoud Abbas pragmatic policy - all these are the right ingredients to solidify the talks held at the Sharm Al Sheik summit. What Abbas and Sharon must avoid in the upcoming weeks and months is to give the veto power to the radicals.

Abbas has held extensive talks with the militant groups before the summit, but it remains unclear how committed Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the Al Aqsa Brigades will be to the truce on short or a longer term. Although, Abbas announced an end to all militant attacks in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Israel, his ability to implement it, depends on whether the powerful militant groups back his bid or not. In this direction, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a Hamas leader in the West Bank declared: "In my opinion, it seems the PA has rushed the matter of a ceasefire without harmonising with the rest of the Palestinian factions."

Hamas Spokesman, Osama Hamdan declared from Lebanon that his group is not obligated in any way by the Israeli/Palestinian cease-fire agreement. In this context, they will wait to see Israel's next step, and act accordingly. "The talk about what the leader of the Palestinian Authority called a cessation of acts of violence is not binding on the resistance, because this is a unilateral stand and was not the result of the outcome of an intra-Palestinian dialogue as has been agreed previously."

In Israel, the hard line settlers raised their voice against the soft policy of PM Sharon in regard to the Palestinians policy of violence.

In Egypt, the Islamic militants protested against the very presence of PM Sharon in Egypt - by burning the Israeli flag and shouting that the only thing that can convince Sharon to take the Palestinian issue in serious is a military strike on Israel.

From Sharm Al Sheikh, PM Sharon appealed to the Israeli and the Palestinians to make the right concessions in return for a secure and peaceful life.
The meeting could prove to be a turning point, if gestures will be follow up by action by both sides to stop all acts of violence. It will take only one side to not want to be a neighbour for peaceful coexistence to fail.

This cease-fire mutual agreement is significant because of three main reasons:

- It was organized for and by the regional state actors without the intervention of the international community
- It took place in the absence of Arafat with whom, the Israeli refused to meet or negotiate with, and in the presence of a newly pragmatic Palestinian leadership

- The disengagement plan which comes after decades of occupation is a sign that both peoples have had enough violence and are eager to start a new file on their relationship

The Palestinians as well as the Israelis expect to see the political rhetoric of their leaders transformed in actions. Both sides have been keen to point out that the goal is to achieve peace through a series of cautious measures that will gradually erode distrust and build confidence. President Abbas has agreed to stop all violence against Israelis while Prime Minister Sharon has promised to "cease all military activity against all Palestinians anywhere". Although, the handshake of the two men has given cause for hope key issues such as the status of Jerusalem, the right of return of the Palestinian refugees, the release of the Palestinian prisoners with "blood on their hands" and the final borders in any two-state solution have yet to be resolved.

Also, Israel has to stop expanding the Jewish settlements on the West Bank land and find a reasonable solution in regard to the separation wall built on the Arab land. At this point a little over a quarter of the barrier has been completed. Although a disputed measure, the fence has offered security to the Israelis. Where it has been completed, there have been no successful suicide attacks. However, the critical point is here how the Palestinians see the wall in this new context of building trust and cooperation on both sides, and what their reaction may be towards it, in the months to come. If the Palestinians will view it as yet, another excuse for the Israelis to grab their land - then their action will likely be less peaceful and friendly, than many would want to recognize. On the other hand, if Sharon can come up with a method of repaying the Palestinians whose land was taken for this purpose, then the wall might not be a principal issue on Abbas agenda.
The PA Chairman strategy so far was to find a way to cooperate with the Islamic radical movements, rather than confront them. Sideling with only one Palestinian movement may deepening the division within the Palestinian community and bring the conflict on the verge of a civil war - outcome undesired by either the Palestinian elite, or by Israel. In this position, Abbas cannot afford to be more or less than a persuasive mediator between the Palestinian parties and between the Palestinians and the Israelis. He needs time to consolidate his position. But, time is not the only thing he needs - he also needs some concessions from the Israelis - something that can raise his credibility in front of Hamas& comp.
PM Sharon major concern is: what if Hamas &comp. will go along with the agreement, but some lunatic will still blow himself up or will shot Israeli soldiers? What should Israel do in this case? Break the agreement and take from the start the whole process all over again, set some limits in partnership with Abbas, or just ignore the attacks that are not orchestrated by the Islamic recognized movements, but rather by blood hungry individuals or by outside organizations such as the Lebanese Hezbollah, a.k.a the Party of God? Although, Hezbollah through its Spokesman Mohammed Afif denied that the party was out to disrupt the Sharm El Sheikh armistice, saying, "these accusations are part of an American-Israeli campaign against Hezbollah". The Palestinian officials have warned that Hezbollah has been offering more money to Palestinians who would carry out attacks in the territories, especially in the Gaza Strip. Hezbollah is prepared to pay up to $20,000 per month to Palestinians who recruit militants, compared to $1,000 in previous years.

Although, officially denied by the Islamic Shiit movement, there were rumours that Abbas sent in Beirut an envoy to Sheik Nasrallah, the Leader of Hezbollah to ask him not to interfere. Also, the Israeli officials have warned the EU and the US that Hezbolalh is sponsoring the suicide operations in the territories, and that its target is to break down the Sharm Al Sheik agreement. A rupture between Abbas and Sharon would only strengthen the Shiit Islamic Hezbollah position as a legitimate resistance against Israel, both in Lebanon and in the region.
Few days after the summit, the Hamas militants fired dozens of mortar bombs into the Jewish settlements of Gaza. Hamas claimed that their attack is a response to the Israeli army, which have killed a Palestinian man. Apparently, the retaliation policy works both ways. However, this time the Palestinians were the ones to ignore the cease-fire agreement. The renewed violence raises concerns about Abbas ability to dominate the militants and stop the rocket attacks on Jewish settlements, as he has vowed. In these conditions, the security coordination meeting between the Israeli officials and the Palestinian Senior officials scheduled to take place after the summit have been cancelled by PM Sharon.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bureau released a communiqué stated the concern over the attacks in the Gaza Strip. The Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared "The fact that the terror is continuing does not correspond with Abu Mazen's remarks in Sharm, that they [the Palestinian Authority] would not tolerate ongoing fire on Israeli civilians. If the Palestinians do not fight terror, we will be forced to do it."

Abu Mazen's [Abbas] response was to dismiss Brigadier General Abdel Razek al-Majaydeh, Public Security Chief for the West Bank and Gaza, National Police Chief Saeb al-Ajez and Omar Ashour, Commander of the Security Forces in the Southern Gaza Strip. Also, several lower-ranking officers lost their job.

The Palestinian Cabinet Secretary, Hassan Abu Libdeh declared: "These are very dangerous developments, and they violate the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority. No one can continue with these violations."

The Israeli government, as any party in a negotiation, must measure the seriousness of its counterpart, to hold itself liable to its own word.

For decades the Palestinian Authority has ordered the incitement of hate in schoolchildren, in religious services and through its regular and daily activities. The result of such unwise and dangerous actions is the raise in profile and authority of Hamas, Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad.

The Palestinians should ask themselves what is their ultimate purpose: statehood or the destruction of Israel? Taking in consideration, Hamas latest actions, it seems that it's the second option. If Hamas aim was to cause damages on the Israeli side, it actually caused more damages on the Palestinian side, by undermining Abbas decisional power.

However, if Hamas attack was motivated by their ambition of holding a more important role in the Israeli/ Palestinian talks, they should say so. As long, as they want a bigger part of the power pie and not an indefinite violent conflict, Abbas and Sharon should seriously consider bringing them in, or watching the efforts and hopes of many going down the river.

While PM Sharon and his government has welcomed Mahmoud Abbas endeavour to engage in serious and direct negotiations, after this incident it is obvious that Abbas is expected to take stronger measures against the militants.

The Palestinians have elected a President and a Cabinet, thus they cannot continue to behave as a people without leadership, and they certainly should not put their future in the arms of the radical Islamists. Having the experience of more than 50 years of violence they should know better than anyone that terror is not the answer to their problems.