Unilateral Procrastination
For the second time this week, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak announces a unilateral postponement of agreed dates on the Palestinian-Israeli track. On January 15, he blithely declared that the 6.1% withdrawal from the West Bank that had been scheduled for January 20 would be postponed till after his return from Washington. The Syrian-Israeli talks in Shepherdstown had already been scheduled to resume on the 19th, so there is no element of surprise there. A scheduled meeting between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and American President Bill Clinton on January 20th is not a sudden development either. One can conclude, however, that Barak’s unilateral postponement of the withdrawal may be attributed to several motives: 1. The most obvious reason is consistent with the pressure tactic of “playing off one track against the other” between the Palestinian and Syrian tracks, by means of which Barak would hope to gain concessions from one track by creating a negative competition with the other.
All these combined will lead to a greater erosion of confidence and to the further inflaming of Palestinian public opinion. Barak’s announcement today of another unilateral postponement, this time of the February 15th date for the Framework Agreement, comes as further proof of a high-handed stance of coercion and a total disregard for the Palestinian side. Barak seems to be totally oblivious of the requirements of a partnership for peace. Both in matters of the substance of policy decisions and in procedural issues dealing with the Palestinian side, he seems to think that he can dictate to the other side and impose his will without any prior agreement or consultation. While we are fully aware of the arrogance of the mentality of occupation, and while it may have succeeded temporarily and with the help of military brutality to enforce the will of the occupier on the occupied, the same cannot apply to peace making. Maneuvering for position and for maximum advantage may produce short- term results. In the long run, the question is one of will, endurance, and legitimacy. The underlying principle is the issue of parity, not the self-defeating illusion of patronizing power. Barak’s options are clear, though mutually exclusive--the distortions of the mentality of occupation that can perpetuate injustice and deepen grievances, or the principled commitment to peace that requires a genuine recognition of the rights of the other. Without the necessary paradigm shift in perceptions and attitudes, peace is not attainable, nor can it be achieved under duress. In the context of the peace process, time is a limited commodity that must not be frittered away irresponsibly, especially with the continued prevalence of the elements of conflict. http://www.miftah.org |