A passage from the Mitchell report succinctly sums up the situation between Israel and the Palestinians:
"Despite their long history and close proximity, some Israelis and Palestinians seem not to fully appreciate each other's problems and
concerns. Some Israelis appear not to comprehend the humiliation and frustration that Palestinians must endure every day as a result
of living with the continuing effects of occupation, sustained by the presence of Israeli military forces and settlements in their midst,
or the determination of the Palestinians to achieve independence and genuine self-determination. Some Palestinians appear not to
comprehend the extent to which terrorism creates fear among the Israeli people and undermines their belief in the possibility of
co-existence, or the determination of the GOI to do whatever is necessary to protect its people.
Fear, hate, anger, and frustration have risen on both sides. The greatest danger of all is that the culture of peace, nurtured over the
previous decade, is being shattered. In its place there is a growing sense of futility and despair, and a growing resort to violence."
A topic that is currently the subject of much discussion is the role, if any, that Yasser Arafat should have going forward. The Sharon government recently
labeled Arafat as "irrelevant", and then, following the interception of the Karine-A, as a "bitter enemy" and terrorist. Should Israel treat Arafat as a potential
peace partner, as a terrorist, or should they even eliminate him? This is a question with no easy answers.
Prior to Oslo Israel controlled the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip. Following the start of the 'peace process' Israel ceded some territorial control to the Palestinian Authority. The government of Israel essentially made a bet that Arafat could/would do what they could not - that for a certain amount of land, an 'international' airport, trappings of state, etc. he would crack down on extremists and prevent attacks on Israel and Israeli settlements. The majority of the difficult questions (e.g. status of Jerusalem, the 'right of return', etc.) were left to be settled later. Thus an explicit choice was made to deal with Arafat... Though known to be corrupt, to enrich himself and his cronies at the expense of the common folk, to be responsible for the arrest, torture, and death of many of his own people, all this could be overlooked as long as he kept his side of the bargain and kept things quiet. Unfortunately, the bet failed and Arafat has failed to deliver. Whether this is because he is a glorious freedom-fighter fighting for his people (Palestinian version), or because he has always sought the complete destruction of the state of Israel (Israeli version), or because he feels that he wouldn't be long for this earth if he really attempted to crush the extremists on his side (the self-preservation version), is a judgement that people and history will have to make. So, what to do now? There are no good choices left.
A look at a map of the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the left clearly shows that peace will never be possible as the situation currently stands. The Palestinians control scattered, unconnected, islets of territory, completely surrounded by areas under Israeli control. Israeli settlements vie for scare resources (e.g. water) and are spreading throughout the area. The difficult-to-answer question of whether Arafat should have a future role in the 'peace process' seems almost a moot point given the current situation on the ground. Yet, if perchance the situation is to be improved, this is a question that will have to be answered.
© SNi 01/22/02