Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

Political Chatter
 
The recent interactions that occurred to the Middle-Eastern Issue

The recent interactions of the Middle-Eastern issue have revealed in a conspicuous and elaborate manner what had been agreed upon in the Camp David Resort on 11th July 2000. On the Palestinian plane, Arafat was deliberately portrayed as a militant figure, which did not yield to the American and Israeli pressures. This was in an attempt to restore confidence in him among the Palestinians and the Arabs in general, in the hope that this will contribute towards making what he is about to perpetrate acceptable. This was followed by a visit that Arafat made on 26th July 2000 to the countries of the region in general and to other European and Asian countries. He announced that the trip was aimed at consulting the brethren and the friendly countries about what had been agreed upon in the Summit and about the declaration of the Palestinian state, which was scheduled for 13th of September 2000. The statements of Arafat made it clear that he was blaming the Israelis for their stubbornness. For his part, the secretary general of the Palestinian cabinet, Ahmed Abdul-Rahman stated on 1st September 2000 that: "If the Palestinians did not get their state through negotiations, they would get it through the intifada." He added: "The Israelis should leave peacefully, and if they did not, the intifada, and more than that, would be waiting for them." As for the Israeli plane, the Israeli public opinion deem the unified city of Al-Quds (east and west) as the capital of the state of Israel and any surrender of Al-Quds would be deemed as treason. Hence, it was imperative to convince the Israelis of the necessity to concede that the expanded East-Al-Quds will be the capital of the nascent Palestinian state, while West-Al-Quds will be the capital of their state, and that this solution will enable them to exist as a state in the region and will protect them from the people of the region.
 
Therefore, the practical style that will establish these facts on the ground is reflected on what had been agreed upon, and what the secretary general of the Palestinian cabinet has threatened, namely the intifada. On 28th September 2000 Sharon entered Al-Haram Al-Qudsi accompanied by more than 3000 heavily armed Israeli soldiers and on the following day the confrontations between the Palestinians and the Israeli soldiers erupted in Al-Aqsa Mosque after the Friday prayer. The Fatah Tanzim played a major role in fuelling the confrontations throughout the rest of the Palestinian lands, which continue unabated up until today. Hence, the defilement of Al-Aqsa by Sharon, which Arafat was aware of beforehand, served as an opportunity to launch the intifada. This intifada bore the name of the "Intifada of Al-Aqsa", thus acting as a clear message to the Jews, that there would be no stability and no peace if the issues of Al-Quds and the sacred sites were not resolved.
 
Hence, launching the "Intifada of Al-Aqsa" was the adopted style to activate the situation and pave the way towards executing the envisaged final status. On the ground, the drawing of the Palestinian state's borders started to become a reality and the closure of various areas and banning the Israelis from entering the areas under the Palestinian authority's control was an incorporation of this reality. Furthermore, it became clear to the Israeli public opinion that the protection of the Jews who live in the settlements of the West Bank is becoming more and more difficult. The necessity to evacuate the settlements became palpable to the Jews, for despite the sensitivity of the issue and the opposition facing any suggestion of evacuation. Besides, no Israeli premier is capable of taking a decision aimed at abolishing the settlement. This is because such a decision would entail a host of negative repercussions, thus affecting the premier's popular support. However, the provocation instigated by the settlers in their areas, their endeavour to fuel the confrontations further with the Palestinians, the continued tension, the fear for their safety, the rising cost of the allocated funds that the Israeli states grants from its treasury towards the protection, expansion and management of these settlements, all of these factors have prompted the leading figures in the Israeli public opinion to think aloud and express the necessity of relinquishing the settlements and joining the settlers with the state of Israel.
 
Since the intifada started, three resolutions have so far been procured from the United Nations, represented by the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Human Rights commission which is affiliated to the United Nations. All these resolutions condemn Israel and rebuke her excessive use of force against the Palestinians. At the Security Council, the American representative declined to use the right to veto when the voting on these resolutions took place. At the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit, a decision was taken to form an international committee, comprising American and United Nations representatives, to hold an inquiry and report back to the Secretary General Kofi Annan. Meanwhile the United Nations sponsored Human Rights commission decided to dispatch an inquiry team to investigate the Human Rights violations. All this was accompanied by an intense anger that engulfed the entire Islamic world, including Indonesia. This placed Israel in an isolation akin to that it experienced during Netanyahu's term of office.
 
The total American bias towards Israel was also deliberately outlined, be it in the American administration's stance or in the congress or even in the stances of the presidential candidates. This in turn raised doubts over the impartiality of the peace process sponsor, thus the attention turned towards the international institutions, such as the United Nations and the Security Council in the hope that these may intervene. This was clearly reflected in more than once occasion, such as the request of Arafat, the American agent, to form an international inspection team. He then altered this request and demanded the sending of an international force to act as a buffer between the Israelis and the Palestinians and to protect the Palestinians against the repeated aggression of the Israeli soldiers. Arafat had earlier undertaken to convey this request to the Security Council during his visit to the United States.

The trend of events has started to shift towards making the international resolutions issued by the United Nations, the reference point of the final settlement. Hence, the United Nations started its moves through its Secretary General and the affiliated institutions, such as the Human Rights Commission, or through placing the emphasis on the resolutions it had adopted, such as resolutions 242, 338 and 198.

If we knew that the conception of the final status is reflected in the leaked document known as the Abu Mazin - Bailin Document, we could then deduce that it acts as the framework of the final status. The Palestinian state's borders are what Israel had occupied in 1967 - or what is amended by mutual agreement -; this includes East-Al-Quds, over which there is no dispute that it will be the capital of the Palestinian state.
 
As for the settlements, they violate the Geneva Convention that prohibits the occupying state from establishing residential areas over the occupied lands. Hence, the presence of the settlements is contrary to the United Nations' resolutions and international law. The recent events exposed their fragile safety and the difficulty of protecting them. Hence, it is imperative to place the emphasis on the related international resolutions and turn them into principles and reference points. At the same time, efforts will be made towards reinforcing the Israeli public opinion that the security of Israel as a state could not be brought about unless a Palestinian state with fixed borders is established, while highlighting the fact that if Israel refuses to comply with these international resolutions, it will face isolation and international embargo, which starby the closurof the trade missions in the Arab states and their counterparts "Israel". The Arab and OIC summits and the resolutions they adopted, are but part of the American endeavour to generate a public opinion in favour of what she aspires to achieve. It is imperative n the foreseeable future, to overcome two obstacles before the peace talks could resume. First, the phase of the American elections. Second, Israel must have a stable government in office. As for the so-called violent acts, steps will be taken towards reducing their intensity. Meanwhile Arafat will continue to gather popular support in Palestine and other Arab countries so that he may achieve an agreement through which the plan designed by America will be executed.

If America and her tools succeed in their deception and in distorting the facts related to this issue, by confining it to the establishment of the Palestinian state, with East Al-Quds as its capital then the people of the region will deem the envisaged final status as a reflection of their aspirations. It will be an acceptable solution and on this basis, the end of the state of dispute, which Barak demanded at the start of the Camp David Summit, can be declared. Therefore, the United States has in collaboration with her agents from among the rulers of the Arab states and Yassir Arafat will have worked towards settling the Palestinian issue in the ugliest of manners, now that she has built a bridge towards the establishment of the Palestinian state with the sculls of the people of Palestine. This state will be the cornerstone in maintaining the security of the Jews in the region.
 
22nd Shaabaan 1421h
19 November 2000

www.hizbuttahrir.org