The anticipated meeting between Palestinian President Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Barak (moved to Tuesday, July 27 following the death of King Hassan II of Morocco) will have to address several issues if it is to go beyond atmospherics and broad statements of intent.

To date, Barak has succeeded in enhancing the international atmosphere of confidence and optimism that was generated by his election. Along with that the emergence of heightened expectations and predictions of breakthroughs and conclusive solutions in the peace process dominated the public discourse.

The Palestinian public, however, has remained largely skeptical.

The reasons for this Palestinian reluctance to soar on the wings of enthusiasm are varied, partly impressionistic and partly objective, but with sufficient validity to be addressed seriously.

These issues of concern must constitute the basic items on the agenda of the projected summit meeting.

Among the most immediate and tangible concerns (and gauges) are the actual policies and conditions on the ground. While all statements and declarations allude to turning a new leaf or to the beginning of a new page in history, the policies and measures still in effect are those of the previous government. The closure or siege, settlement activities, collective punitive measures, as well as other repressive policy decisions of the Likud era have remained firmly in place.

While Barak has been winning friends and influencing people throughout the world, he has neglected the volatile legacy of Netanyahu and its destructive impact on the lives of ordinary Palestinians.

Since this has come about as a result of a complex body of policy decisions, it is imperative that the new government begin a systematic process of review and disentanglement in order to unravel such a web of victimization. Such an exercise should aim not only at damage control but also at damage eradication. As such, it will begin the process of restoring confidence and regaining the rapidly diminishing constituency for peace.

The most effective response to the “no difference” argument is to emphasize the difference in action and not just in words.

Another essential departure from previous policies is in the realm of ideology. Netanyahu’s eschatological pronouncements on Jerusalem in particular (as the eternal, undivided capital of Israel under full Israeli sovereignty) were instrumental in destroying trust and provoking parallel absolutist statements in response. The language of pragmatism, legality, and peace cannot accommodate such ideological exclusivity.

Such a departure applies as well to all other permanent status issues. When asked about Palestinian statehood, Barak responded by referring to the inadvisability of “unilateralism” on issues to be negotiated.

Such an approach applies even more directly to such substantive issues as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, boundaries, and external security. Thus any unilateral decisions on these issues by Barak would not only blur the difference between the current and the previous Israeli governments, but would also raise the specter of fear and distrust throughout the region. Its impact on the peace process will be enormous.

One of the most emotive and critical issues for the Palestinian people as a whole is the question of the refugees. By presuming to seal their fate and declaring that they should be absorbed by their host countries, Barak has struck at the core of the legality of the process while simultaneously sounding the alarm throughout the Arab world and Palestinian communities everywhere.

Such a prejudicial unilateral position presumes to dictate to the host countries potentially destabilizing demographic conditions; more importantly, it seeks to perpetuate a situation of tremendous injustice and victimization on the Palestinian refugees. Ultimately, it is a foolproof self- destruct mechanism for any peace process. The magnitude, significance, and implications of the Palestinian refugee question demand a courageous recognition not only of its centrality but also of the need for a just solution.

In addressing the final status issue of settlements, Barak is not empowered to imbue them with any legality. The issue is not in making arrangements that would accommodate Israeli extraterritoriality and render the violation of the territorial integrity of Palestine acceptable. Rather it is one of compliance with international law and the removal of all distortions imposed by a long legacy of occupation. The “logic” of settlements is entirely inconsistent with the logic of peace, particularly in their reality as a visible expression of injustice, hence sources of future volatility and conflict. Furthermore, by seeking to prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian State, such settlements are attempting to negate the most crucial component or requirement of genuine peace.

Another indicator and test that remains to be unequivocally resolved is that of the implementation of signed agreements.

Decidedly, this means all of the agreements in their entirety, and not selective or partial implementation.

The PNA emphasis on the implementation of the Wye Memorandum should not be perceived as an exclusive commitment. To the Palestinian leadership, this agreement is primarily an American reformulation; hence it enjoys full American support and endorsement. Despite its drawbacks, it represents a joint American-Palestinian consensus.

In addition, Wye is the most recent and the easiest agreement for implementation since it was reduced to fit Netanyahu’s “ceiling”; thus it forms the simplest test of adherence to assure the Palestinians of the new Israeli government’s compliance.

It is imperative, however, that this test be extended to all previous agreements, particularly in reference to issues omitted by Wye (such as prisoner release) or prejudiced by it (such as the full extent of redeployments).

The false “reciprocity” incorporated in the text of Wye (specifically on the PNA’s security obligations) must be exposed for the unworkable conditionality it represents—both as a Likud excuse for non-implementation and for placing the PNA on “good behavior” throughout its implementation. Thus neither the mentality of domination based on the asymmetry of power nor the internal distortions in the areas of democracy and human rights must be allowed to prevail.

In addition, since the motivation for the phased approach was to prepare the atmosphere and conditions for confidence to facilitate permanent status talks, carrying over any interim-phase issues into these talks would defeat the purpose.

It is expected that the Arafat-Barak meeting will address the controversial Barak statements on carrying over or merging some of the interim phase issues with permanent status talks, with particular reference to the third phase of redeployment.

Such a negotiating strategy, on any interim-phase issues, could mean uneven and unfair trade-offs. Short-term, technical and partial transitional concessions could be made in exchange for a serious long-term price in the more substantive and significant permanent status issues. The results could spell disaster for the whole peace process.

Barak is also expected to assure President Arafat on the issue of the timeframe, particularly in view of his declarations on the fifteen-month target for completion of negotiations. Any unilateral decisions on the timetable, and any prolongation or stalling in the already delayed process will contribute further to the erosion of confidence and enhance the potential for conflict.

A significant agenda item for this meeting is the emphasis on the Syrian track and the implications of progress there on the Palestinian track.

Any separation, negative competition, or attempts to play off one track against the other will backfire. Both leaders must recommit to the principle and mechanisms of comprehensiveness and coordination. In strategic and military terms, peace with Syria is a priority for Israel. However, the centrality of the Palestinian question renders it indispensable to any legal, just, or lasting peace. It also determines the security and stability of the whole area, in addition to the legitimacy of Israel within any regional framework. Simultaneous and consistent progress is desirable on both tracks (as well as on the Lebanese track) to ensure a balanced and comprehensive settlement. Neither the pressure of time nor fear of being “left out” should lead to hasty and irresponsible decisions.

It is also clear that the US role and the participation of the international community will be addressed.

Barak’s preference for a “facilitator” role for the US has alarmed the Palestinian leadership. This is certainly not due to a Palestinian blind faith in the even-handedness or integrity of the US; rather it signals the very real need for a third-party witness and mediator to avoid misrepresentation and to help resolve disagreements.

Just as significantly, it stems from a notion that the presence of the US would help redress the disequilibrium of power, and, conversely, its absence would allow Israel to exploit it in its favor.

The US record of intervention and participation in whatever guise (peace broker, mediator, partner, facilitator, or manager) has not been exemplary or unblemished. Its clear bias towards Israel and its unabashed exploitation of Palestinian need or weakness (however real or perceived) have seriously undermined the credibility of the US and of the peace process among the Palestinian people as a whole.

Consequently, the US is in need of undertaking a candid and bold assessment of its role in and impact on the peace process, and of adopting policies less prejudicial to Palestinian rights and to the requirements of a just peace. Neither self-effacement nor biased micromanagement are desirable in the coming phase as the attributes of an even-handed peace broker or sponsor.

Barak’s insistence on elevating the level of engagement to the top leadership level may contribute to the elimination of intermediaries, underlings, bureaucrats, and secret-channel advocates motivated by self-interest and personal agendas. Clear and direct discourse, as well as accessibility for direct input and conflict-resolution, is essential for progress. Sifting of information or clouding of issues or partial presentation and misrepresentation are fatal to all parties concerned.

All that, however, does not mean the exclusion of other global players and credible partners. The US cannot claim exclusive rights to the peace process nor a monopoly of interests. Beyond lip service and public statements, the involvement of the international community in all stages and areas of negotiations is desirable. The structural and procedural requirements should be devised to ensure an effective investment in the cause of peace and its sustainability.

Whatever else is on the agenda of the two leaders, neither can afford to ignore the need to regain the constituency for peace in public opinion on both sides. A real shift in attitudes and the arduous journey towards reestablishing confidence requires transparency, involvement, and a real debate on issues in the public arena.

To this end, institutions of civil society and grass roots organizations can play an effective role. Without this partnership, and without the real embrace of the cause of peace by the people who will enjoy its fruits or suffer the consequences of its absence, no peace can endure.

Democracy, empowerment, and participatory governance are not the by-products of peace. Nor are they secondary issues to be addressed at a later stage or to be made subject to other considerations of power or false security. They are urgent and pressing requirements for the attainment of genuine peace, stability, security, prosperity, and human dignity.

Between euphoria and skepticism, attitudes and responses to Barak’s first weeks in government occupy a large and diverse space in both the global and domestic arenas.

So far, the Barak scrutiny has been responding to statements of intent and assurances of commitment to the peace process.

Without uttering a word, he immediately received the accolades and embraces of world leaders who were undergoing arduous exercises (such as bending over backwards) to accommodate his every whim.

In a gesture of unprecedented generosity, the US Congress granted Israel US$ 30 million more than was requested by the already generous administration.