TO END BLOODSHED, RETURN TO CLINTON PLAN FOR
By Yossi Beilin
Yossi Beilin served as a minister in the Israeli governments of Yitzhak
Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak and was the initiator of the Oslo peace
process. A sidebar discusses the return of Anthony Zinni to the Middle
East on March 14.)
TEL AVIV -- The Middle East is no different from other regions in
the world, and there is no reason why it should be sentenced to an eternity
of bloodshed. It is possible to make peace in the Middle East. It is possible
to make peace within a short period of time, and to prevent any more unnecessary
deaths, such as those victims who are being killed day after day, by Palestinian
fire and by Israeli fire.
The early '90s imbued us with new hopes, which were realized: the Madrid
Conference, in late October 1991, gave rise to the direct talks between
Israel and the Syrian delegation, the Lebanese delegation and the Jordanian-Palestinian
The Oslo agreement in 1993 gave rise to the creation of the Palestinian
Authority and enabled cooperation on security matters between the Palestinians
and Israelis, which prevented a great deal of violence between these two
peoples. The Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement, signed following the Oslo
agreement, changed the map of the region. In the multilateral talks that
dealt with the future of the refugees, the question of water, the issue
of arms control, the problem of the environment, and economic cooperation
among the countries of the region, most of the members of the Arab League
took part alongside Israel and America, Europe, Japan and many other countries
around the world. Diplomatic relations between Israel and the Persian
Gulf states, North Africa and Mauritania developed at a rapid pace. At
that time, it appeared the Middle East was on the verge of peace.
In 1995, the massacre conducted by Baruch Goldstein on Palestinians praying
at the Cave of Machpelah (Tomb of the Patriarchs) and the terrorist attacks
by Palestinians against Israelis opened up a new era.
The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin; the election of Benjamin
Netanyahu, a staunch opponent of the Oslo process, as prime minister of
Israel; the expiration of the five-year interim agreement between Israel
and the Palestinians, without any progress toward a permanent status agreement;
the disappointment that even Ehud Barak, as prime minister, was unable
to achieve a permanent status agreement; the provocative and unnecessary
visit of Ariel Sharon, as the head of the opposition, to the Temple Mount;
the Palestinian intifada that broke out the day after his visit, not curbed
by Yasser Arafat; the election of Sharon as prime minister of Israel and
the joining of the Labor party to this right-wing government -- all of
the above have created the feeling in the region and around the world
that the peace process is dead.
What has taken place in the past year is, basically, an attempt to move
from "conflict resolution'' to "conflict management.'' We have
witnessed efforts to reach a cease-fire and to implement confidence-building
measures, out of a pessimistic view that it is no longer realistic to
reach a permanent solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
This is the most severe mistake made by the American administration this
We are not at the outset of the journey. We were very close to a permanent
agreement, both with Syria and the Palestinians. In all likelihood, it
was precisely because of the acute tension entailed in reaching the moment
of truth that this severe wave of violence erupted. Israelis cannot understand
why at this point in time, when we were so close to peace, the Palestinians
have chosen to use violence, justifying it by their desire to terminate
the Israeli occupation. After all, if there has ever been a more illogical
moment to protest the Israeli occupation in the past 35 years, it is now,
at the time that we were about to bring an end to the occupation by means
of an agreement.
The Palestinians cannot understand why Israel is reacting with so much
force, why Israel is restricting the movements of Arafat and humiliating
the Palestinian Authority, when, ostensibly, it would be in the Israelis'
best interests to strengthen the position of their Palestinian partner
in order to return to a situation of cooperation on security matters and
to move forward toward peace. The anger on both sides is extensive. The
desire to avenge the death of innocent people, who are being killed day
after day, on both sides, is enormous, but then so is the desire to put
an end to this madness and the embrace of death between the Israelis and
It is a fact that the Saudi initiative, to establish normal relations
with Israel as soon as it signs a peace agreement with the Palestinians,
has received support among both Israeli and Palestinian public opinion.
The ground is ready, on both sides, for extreme violence, on the one hand,
and for peace, on the other, provided that there is an end to this ongoing
war of attrition. This is the moment for those people who believe in peace
to put forward their proposals, and they will be surprised by the amount
of support they will receive.
The main effort should focus on finding a solution to the conflict, rather
than persisting with the current situation of conflict management. Instead
of placing emphasis on the proposals of George Tenet for a cease-fire
and the report of George Mitchell, we should return to discussions on
the permanent solution, according to the Clinton plan.
A demilitarized Palestinian state will be established next to the state
of Israel, and the border between them will be based on the borders in
existence prior to the Six Day War, with mutual adjustments. Within the
municipal borders of Jerusalem, and even beyond, there will be the capitals
of the two states. Most of the settlers will live under Israeli sovereignty,
and those settlements situated in Palestinian territory will be vacated.
A fair solution will be found for the problem of the refugees in the form
of compensation and their absorption in the new Palestinian state, and
in other ways, as shall be agreed by the two sides. The border between
Israel and Syria will also be based on the 1967 lines, and the area in
dispute in the North East of the Sea of Galilee will have a special status,
similar to that of the Taba region on the border between Israel and Egypt.
If the United States were to return to working on a permanent status agreement,
it would be easier to convince the two sides to reach a cease-fire and
to implement confidence-building measures. The permanent status agreement
is not an illusion of naive people in the Middle East. It is a practical
step, close to realization, and the best way to return to the more peaceful
relations of the years that preceded the recent intifada. While it is
true that today there is no trust between the two sides, it must be remembered
that peace agreements around the world are signed, as a rule, in the wake
of difficult conflicts, when the lack of mutual trust is extreme and the
hatred is deep.
A peaceful Middle East is in the interests of the entire world, and not
only of its residents. Unlike many other conflicts around the world, whose
solution is unknown, the solution to the Middle East conflict is patently
clear. Some people want to adopt it; others oppose it. However, there
is no serious entity offering an alternative solution. Many, many years
passed until we reached, in the year 2000, an agreement, in principle,
with respect to this solution, when the official state of Israel and the
Palestinian Authority agreed to the Clinton plan (even though their consent
was subject to various reservations), and on this basis, we went to the
Taba talks in early 2001. Had it not been for the elections in Israel,
it is most probable that we would have reached a peace agreement at the
Taba talks, which both sides would have supported by conducting a referendum.
Let us not go back to square one! Let us take large strides forward, let
us think in terms of the larger picture, and let us succeed in wiping
off the face of the Earth the longest international conflict, which has
existed since the end World War II.
By Yossi Beilin
The Bush administration has changed its mind and decided to send back Anthony
C. Zinni as its envoy to the Middle East for the third time, in spite of
the fact that the violence has increased considerably and that the administration
said Zinni would be sent back only if it subsided.
There is reason to hope that Zinni's mission, which begins Thursday (March
14), could help stem the violence and find a way for both sides to begin
to fashion peace. But to do that, Zinni must demand an immediate cessation
of violence by both Israelis and Palestinians.
If he plans to come for two days just to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders,
let him not make the effort. If he intends to promote prerequisites for
negotiations, it will be nothing more than a waste of his time.
In short, Zinni must come to the region and stay. He must establish his
own headquarters, engage in shuttle diplomacy between the Israelis and the
Palestinians and demand that Yasser Arafat move freely about the region.
Zinni must convey messages. He must straighten things out. He must extinguish
fires and offer strategies, not tactics.
If he fails to do this and if the flames of violence increase, the fire
might ignite the more moderate Arab countries. Then there will be no alternative,
and Zinni, or a more senior official, will be summoned to this area in order
to extinguish the fire. Let us pray it is not too late.
One thing in President Bush's favor regarding Zinni's role is that whatever
happens during this visit will be tantamount to a pleasant surprise. If,
in the past, the administration had tried to lower expectations, this time
it did not have to bother. No one expects anything.
Just as it was a mistake to prevent Zinni from returning to the Middle East
until now, so was it a grave mistake, on the part of the Bush administration,
to adopt Sharon's prerequisite of "seven days of quiet before returning
to the negotiating table,'' with him as the sole judge as to whether quiet
was, in fact, maintained.
Although, off the record, most of the Bush administration officials who
authorized the seven-day requirement now admit they were wrong, they have
not retracted that policy. Even now, after Sharon himself called off the
prerequisite, he is still talking about his readiness to negotiate a cease
fire, under fire, rather than any other form of political settlement. Zinni's
main task must be to annul this veto power and to insist on returning to
the political negotiating table.
Harsh events have been occurring in the region since the retired general's
last visit. The phenomenon of Palestinian suicide bombers has become appallingly
prevalent, and the young men who were ready to sacrifice their lives to
kill Israelis were joined by older men and even by women.
The A areas (which according to the agreement signed by Israel and the Palestinians
in 1995 were handed over to the Palestinians for their full control) have
turned into areas that the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) enters and exits
at its will, as if they were its permanent firing zones. The Palestinian
Authority, with its leader being kept prisoner in Ramallah, has become weaker.
It now contains local Palestinians who do not abide by its rules and who
have become prominent figures in the intifada. Many more people, on the
Israeli side, understand that Sharon's policy is leading toward no strategic
goal, while claiming more and more victims.
(c) 2002, Global Viewpoint. Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate International,
a division of Tribune Media Services
For immediate release (Distributed 3/13/02)