A flawed peace plan

Editorial -- Times Union

December 27, 2000

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyKey=48588&category=O

President Clinton's proposals to end violence in the Mideast are one-sided and inadequate

With an eye firmly fixed on his legacy, President Clinton is pushing hard for Israelis and Palestinians to sign off on a peace plan that he believes will bring stability to the region. But the President is mistaken, and so is Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who appears be more concerned with his election prospects next month than with the grim consequences of his peace-at-any-price policies.

On the surface, Mr. Clinton's plan is appealing. He would balance the claims and concerns of both sides by requiring each to make major concessions in exchange for a secure peace. Israel would have to cede sovereignty over the Temple Mount, a site revered by Muslims and Jews. Palestinians would have to forgo the right of refugees to return to Israel.

On closer inspection, Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat has more to gain under the Clinton plan than Mr. Barak does. Far more. Differences over the Temple Mount prompted Mr. Arafat to walk away from a string of concessions made by Mr. Barak when the two leaders met with President Clinton at Camp David last July. Mr. Arafat adamantly insisted on Palestinian control -- a demand also made by Islamic militant groups who would surely make Mr. Arafat pay with his life at the first sign of compromise.

The Temple Mount has become the context for months of violent confrontations between Palestinians and Israeli troops. Many outside observers blame Ariel Sharon, the right-wing Israeli leader who is now running against Mr. Barak in the February election, for instigating the violence by visiting Temple Mount in September in a pointed reminder of the failed Camp David talks. But no matter how offensive his visit might have been to Palestinians, it cannot justify the violence that has ensued. Approximately 350 people have been killed in clashes in Gaza and the West Bank. The majority of the casualties have been Palestinians, and many victims have been children. But that is largely because Palestinian children have been sacrificed by their elders for the sake of turning world opinion against Israel.

Now comes Mr. Clinton's plan, which, if accepted by Mr. Barak, would reward violence. Palestinians would get what they have always wanted -- sovereignty over Temple Mount. The message would be clear: It pays to abandon the peace table and take to the streets with rocks and guns. It would be the worst kind of message.

The refugee provision is designed to allay Israeli fears a flood of Palestinian settlers would skew the country's demographics and politics. But until there are clear boundaries for the proposed Palestinian state, it is impossible to gauge just what the impact might, or might not, be. Mr. Barak thus has the responsibility to demand more specifics, and to move cautiously in the interim.

Even at that, if the Clinton plan were to guarantee a lasting Mideast peace, Mr. Barak would be justified in signing it. But the opposite is true. By rewarding violence, this plan is a formula for more violence to come -- guaranteed.

Please make sure you bcc us a copy of that letter: pmw-letters@egroups.com

Thanks,

Ahmed Bouzid

Palestine Media Watch

http://www.pmwatch.org