Global
Updates From World View
May 2002
America
Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace
By Jimmy Carter
ATLANTA
— 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.
The New York Times,
April 21, 2002