Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2003, page 22

Special Report

 

Sharon Bars Palestinians From British Peace Conference as Scandals Mar Israeli Elections

 

By Nathan Jones

One of the most underreported conferences of the year took place Jan. 14 in London, where 15 delegates from the European Union, the United Nations, the U.S., Russia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt met to discuss the reform of the Palestinian Authority. Ironically, no major Palestinian officials were present—thanks to the opposition of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, for reasons of domestic electoral politics, refused to allow Palestinian delegates to leave the occupied territories and attend the conference.

The British-sponsored event also met with opposition from Israel’s Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who, a week before the session, clashed with his British counterpart Jack Straw on the telephone. Netanyahu made it clear that Israel disapproved of sending Palestinian delegates to Britain. Sharon adviser Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to Washington, also informed the BBC that Israel objected to the conference. He blamed Arafat—head of the PLO, its Fatah faction and the Palestinian Authority—for the Jan. 5 bombings in Tel Aviv.

Shoval also alleged that “this same Yasser Arafat sends people who are part of his terrorist organization in order to bask in the diplomatic limelight in London. If the Palestinians want to effect reform, reform should be effected [in the Middle East].”

Despite Israeli objections, which many felt clashed with earlier Israeli calls for Palestinian governmental reform, Palestinian representatives finally were able to take part in the conference via a video link from Gaza and Ramallah to the British Foreign Office conference room. “We had to find a way around the Israeli decision,” explained Foreign Secretary Straw, “and that is what we did.”

The conference revealed that the Palestinian Authority already has made significant progress in economic and financial reforms. Plans were laid for a further draft of a new Palestinian constitution, to provide for a prime minister and a bill of rights, and which will be made available in early February.

In addition, Straw announced that other proposals for reforming the public administration and the civil service would be forthcoming by mid-February. “Continuing terror attacks,” he added, “underscore the fragile nature of all of these efforts and demonstrate the need for an immediate, comprehensive cease-fire.”

Palestinians were both critical of and eager to participate in the conference and its reform objectives. The success of their reforms, and any cease-fire, they insisted, depended on an end to Israel’s current restrictions of their movements, including curfews and road closings. Britain’s Straw agreed, but added that the restrictions should not stand in the way of improving security. “They have responsibilities, prime responsibilities, to improve the security situation,” he said. In other words, just because the Palestinians can’t do everything because of the security situation, doesn’t mean they can’t do anything.

 

“Reforms in democracy and meritocracy are a Palestinian aspiration.”

Noting that the basis for the conference discussions was the creation of two independent and secure states, Straw was careful to attribute the idea to a June 24 Middle East policy speech by U.S. President George W. Bush. Straw also reaffirmed the commitment by the so-called Quartet—the EU, U.S., U.N. and Russia—to prepare a “road map” for progress toward that goal.

Palestinian envoy to Britain Afif Safieh said he was “happy to say that the verdict today of the international community is that there is a missing state and it needs to be created.” The Palestinian Authority, he added, has “assured our interlocutors that reforms in democracy and meritocracy are a Palestinian aspiration, a Palestinian expectation, a Palestinian right and even a Palestinian duty to ourselves.”

Such optimism, of course, is not shared by everyone. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns, who also attended the meeting, declined to comment following the conference. His demurral reflected the Bush administration’s handling of the reform conference: Secretary of State Colin Powell avoided the subject of Israel and the conference entirely, while President Bush rattled on about Saddam Hussain, Korea, North Korea, and China without mentioning Palestinian or, for that matter, Israeli reform.

The strategy behind the Bush administration’s reticence may have been to avoid making any statements that Sharon could exploit during the period leading up to Israel’s Jan. 28 elections. After all, the lack of a Palestinian state was the major unspoken order of business for everyone at the conference, which made it difficult to proceed without getting into issues that could seriously affect the outcome of Israel’s elections.

 

An Unpredictable Outcome

That outcome, in the weeks prior to Jan. 28, was difficult to predict. In Israel, accusations were flying over Sharon allegedly giving preference to Israeli electors in exchange for bribes. As that issue still boiled, it was revealed that a wealthy South African had provided Sharon with a $1.5 million loan to meet the prime minister’s previous election expenses. While Sharon insisted that the money had been paid back via his two sons, he provided no evidence of that, and so this scandal, too, remained unresolved.

To make matters worse for Sharon and his right-wing Likud Party, and as a lead-up to the election, Labor Party candidate Amram Mitzna told the press that the Labor Party would not enter into a post-election coalition with Likud. Meanwhile Shinui, the secular Peacenik party headed by Tommy Lapid, has a growing Knesset presence that could endanger Sharon’s majority.

It is thus difficult to predict whether Sharon will be able to form a government in his first attempt, or whether some center-left coalition based on Labor and its allies may succeed. Even given a Sharon victory (as polls seem to indicate), the violence that is sure to follow may bring about a new vote sooner than anyone can guess.

All of this is critically important because the Arab-Israeli problem could come to an end very soon if the Israeli electorate backs Mitzna and other like-minded candidates. Strangely, while most Israelis really want a peace settlement—which is only possible if Sharon is deposed—many nevertheless are showing support for Sharon at the polls. Don’t ask Israeli pundits to explain why. As is so often said, there is no explaining the Israeli public—at least to anyone who is not an Israeli.

Nathan Jones is a free-lance writer specializing in Israeli and North American Jewish affairs.

< Prev		Next >