Monday, February 27, 2006

ARABS FALSE PEACE TRUCE TO ISRAEL

Israel Rejects Hamas Conditions for Long-term Truce VOA NEWS

Prime minister-designate says group would agree to long-term cease-fire with Israel, if it withdraws from all territory captured during 1967 Arab-Israeli war

Ismail Haniyeh Israel has rejected the conditions of the Islamic militant group Hamas for a long-term cease-fire. A Hamas leader ruled out recognition of Israel or peace with the Jewish state. Hamas Prime Minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh says the group would agree to a long-term cease-fire with Israel, if it withdraws from all territory captured during the Six Day War in 1967. That means the WestBank and Jerusalem's Old City, which is home to the Western Wall andTemple Mount, the holy sites in Judaism.

Mr. Haniyeh backed away from an interview he gave to The Washington Post, which quoted him as saying that Hamas would recognize Israel, and make "peace in stages," if it gave the Palestinians a state and their rights. That would include the so-called "right of return" -allowing millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their former homes in Israel.Israel says flooding the country with Palestinian refugees would destroy the Jewish character of the state and amount to national suicide, and it dismissed Mr. Haniyeh's offer outright.

Israeli analyst Dan Schueftan:"One has to be stupid to even seriously consider, if he is making a conciliatory statement," said Dan Schueftan. "What he is saying is that, after Israel is destroyed, namely after the right of return is instituted, and so on, then he will consider to have a long-term truce with Israel. I mean it is a ridiculous statement."Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said the Hamas victory in parliamentary elections a month ago has made moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas irrelevant. She said that Mr. Abbas, who is recognized by the international community because he supports the peace process, must not be what she called a fig leaf for a terrorist regime.
------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, February 16, 2006

PERES READY FOR FINAL STATUS TALKS

Last update - 08:32 19/01/2006

Peres: Israel ready to hold final status talks with PA after vote

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Shimon Peres said Wednesday that Israel would be ready to open negotiations with the Palestinians on a permanent peace accord after it holds elections March 28.The aim, he said after meeting for 45 minutes with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, would be to end the conflict between the two sides and establish permanent borders between them.

Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, quit the Labor party late last year to join the centrist Kadima party, founded by Ariel Sharon, who initiated Israel's historic withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank last September. Implying Israel was prepared to yield more territories, Peres told reporters, "We don't think of Gaza last but Gaza first.

"Peres said Sharon, who was incapacitated with a major stroke on January 4, "really wanted to make a real try to bring an end to the conflict."He also said that Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was named the interim chairman of Kadima, held similar positions to those of Sharon. He said reports that Sharon intended to hold on to most of the West Bank as well as all of Jerusalem were wrong.

"My impression is he was ready to go a long way," Peres said.Peres also raised Israel's request for U.S. financial aid to develop the peripheral areas of the Negev and the Galilee.Rice and other State Department officials made no statement after the meeting.

PEACE PROCESS ISRAELI PLAYERS

PEACE PROCESS MAIN PLAYERS (ISRAELIS)

ARIEL SHARON

The Palestinians are especially distrustful since an official Israeli inquiry found Sharon -- who, as minister of defense, orchestrated Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon -- indirectly responsible for the massacre of several hundreds of Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps outside of Beirut, Lebanon, at the hands of Christian militiamen allied with Israel.

The Palestinians also blamed Sharon for the most recent violence, claiming that his visit to a disputed Jerusalem site on September 28, 2000, endangered the push for peace. Sharon said he went to the site -- known as the Temple Mount by Jews and Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) by Muslims -- with a message of peace.

He said the violence was a premeditated campaign orchestrated by the Palestinian Authority. More on Ariel Sharon. Ariel Sharon, a barrel-framed ex-general, realized a lifelong dream when he toppled incumbent Ehud Barak, in the February 2001 special election for Israeli prime minister.Sharon won in a landslide, and when the liberal Labor party voted to join Sharon's more conservative Likud in a unity government, he was set to lead Israel during what would be a turbulent time in the nation's history.

Silvan Shalom

Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister• Shalom was finance minister when he swapped jobs with Benjamin Netanyahu as foreign minister in February 2003. Shalom retained his post of deputy prime minister in the move.• Previously he held the posts of minister of science (1998-1999) and deputy defense minister (1997-1998).•

Shalom, a trained economist and accountant, was elected to the Knesset in 1992, and was adviser to the finance minister in his early political days.• Born in Tunisia in 1958, Shalom moved to Israel with his family a year later. A journalist by profession, he is married with five children.• Shalom holds degrees in economics, accounting and law, and a master's of arts in public policy.

Benjamin Netanyahu Finance Minister•

Netanyahu accepted the post of finance minister in February 2003 after failing in his challenge to Ariel Sharon for the Likud party leadership and the post of prime minister. He had been foreign minister.• Netanyahu fought on a ticket of expelling Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the rejection in principle of a Palestinian state.•

Born in Tel Aviv 1949 and raised in Jerusalem, he studied architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and worked in consulting and management positions in the United States and Israel.• In the early 1970s he was a member of the elite army special operations unit, Sayeret Matcal, and helped rescue a hijacked plane at Tel Aviv airport in 1972.•

He was ambassador to the United Nations from 1984 to 1988 and has held several other key diplomatic and government posts, among them delegate to the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991 and the Washington talks, 1991-92, and deputy foreign minister.• In 1996, Netanyahu became Israel's youngest prime minister and served three years, losing to Labor Party leader Ehud Barak in 1999 elections.• He is married with three children.

Efraim Eitam Housing and Construction Minister National Religious Party•

Eitam, who was born in Kibbutz Ein Gev, entered politics after an illustrious 30-year career in the army during which he rose to brigadier general.• His hawkish NRP party joined Sharon's coalition government after winning six seats in the 2003 general election.• The party, deemed the voice of the Jewish settler movement, strongly advocates against removing or freezing of settlements.•

Eitam was appointed housing minister in March 2003, having been minister of national infrastructures from September 2002. Before that,he was minister without portfolio.• He retired from the Israel Defense Forces in 2000, having been commander of an armored division in the IDF Northern Command and commanding Israeli forces in southern Lebanon between 1998 and 1999.• He also commanded an elite commando unit in a rescue mission on a hijacked Air France airliner in Entebbe, Uganda, in 1976.

Natan Sharansky Minister Without PortfolioYisrael Ba-Aliya/Likud•

Sharansky, head of a right-wing Russian immigrants party, was born in the Ukraine in 1948.• A computer sciences graduate of the Physical Technical Institute in Moscow, he spent nine years in a Soviet prison for dissident activities. Led by his wife, the campaign for his release became an international cause celebre.• He left for Israel the day he was released, February 11, 1986, and arrived to a hero's welcome.•

Elected to the Knesset in 1996, he was interior minister in Ehud Barak's Labor government but resigned over Barak's decision to join the Palestinians for talks at Camp David in July 2000.• He has two daughters.Avigdor LiebermanTransport MinisterNational Union• Lieberman is known for fiery pronouncements such as suggesting that Israel attack Egypt and Iran in the event of an Arab offensive.• He came to Israel in 1978 from the then-Soviet republic of Moldova.

In 1999 he founded and became head of the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party. He was elected to the Knesset the same year. He served in the Israel Defense Forces and was editor of the newspaper Yoman Yisraeli.• Born in 1958, he is married with three children. He has a degree in international relations and political science from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Benyamin Elon Tourism Minister National Union•

When Elon was appointed tourism minister in February 2003, it was for the second time in his career, having resigned from his first stint in March 2002.• He had taken over from Rechavam Ze'evi when Palestinian gunmen assassinated the minister in a Jerusalem hotel in October 2001.• Born in Jerusalem in 1954, Elon served as a chaplain in the Israel Defense Forces and later as a rabbi of a kibbutz.• A Knesset member since 1996, he is married with six children.

Avraham Poraz Interior Minister Shinui•

Poraz, first elected to the Knesset in 1988, has held a number of committee posts including finance, economics and internal affairs.• The law graduate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has also sat on the constitution, law and justice committees.• Born in Romania in 1945, he came with his family to Israel five years later. He speaks Hebrew, English, French and Romanian.• He is married and has two children.

PEACE PROCESS ARAB PLAYERS

PEACE PROCESS MAIN PLAYERS (ARABS)

Mahmoud Abbas (or Abu Mazen)

Mahmoud Abbas -- also known as Abu Mazen -- claimed victory in the Palestinian elections of January 2005 to replace the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, who died in November 2004. Abbas was Arafat's chief lieutenant and is secretary-general of the PLO's executive committee. A veteran of peace negotiations, he was one of the key players in the secret talks that led to the 1993 Oslo accords and is the former PLO ambassador to Moscow. Abbas met with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and U.S.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in Washington in 2001 while he was in the United States for medical treatment. In March 2003, he reluctantly agreed to become the first Palestinian prime minister but quit after four months in office, accusing Arafat of undermining his authority by refusing to give him control of the Palestinian Authority's security organizations.

Abbas was born in 1935 in the village of Saffed.

Abdullah II King of Jordan.

Abdullah II became king of Jordan in February 1999 after the death of his father, King Hussein, who ruled the country for 47 years. Hussein forged a peace treaty with Israel in 1994.Despite Jordan's good relationship with Israel, Abdullah must deal with pressure from a citizenry that is 70 percent Palestinian.Abdullah has urged that Jerusalem be declared an "open city" where West Jerusalem would become the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem the capital of the future Palestinian state.

Apparently following the footsteps of his father, Abdullah also has played the role of mediator on other matters in the region, working behind the scenes to try to restart talks between Israel and Syria.

Bashar Assad

Syrian president British-educated ophthalmologist Bashar Assad assumed the leadership of Syria with the death of his father, President Hafez Assad, in June 2000. Hafez Assad ruled for 30 years by tyranny; his son enters the political arena with no firm power base. Bashar Assad also has been handed a stagnant economy and meager infrastructure.

It is unclear if Bashar Assad will continue his father's uncompromising line in peace negotiations with Israel, or adopt a more pragmatic approach to the long-running border disputes between the two countries.Assad has been vocal, however, in his support for the Palestinians and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, pledging to coordinate peace efforts with the Palestinians.

Hosni Mubarak

Egyptian president Long an important patron of the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, Mubarak was also quick to endorse Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak after he won office in May 1999.

Ahmed Qorei (or Abu Ala'a)

Ahmed Qorei, also called Abu Ala'a, is the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council and has held the post since the council was created in 1996. Under the Palestinian constitution, he takes over for 60 days if Arafat dies or is incapacitated while new elections are set up. The people then vote for a new leader.

Qorei was a PLO negotiator during the secret 1993 talks with Israel in Norway, the talks that produced the Oslo peace accords. Qorei also was a key player in the eventually failed final status peace talks at Camp David in July 2000 and in Taba in January 2001. He recently had a prominent role in meetings with United States Middle East envoy Anthony Zinni. In an interview with the Egyptian magazine Al-Mussawar published in February 2002, Arafat said that in the event he couldn't fulfill his duties, the council speaker would take over as Palestinian Authority president until new elections are held. Qorei was born in Jerusalem in 1937.

Mohammed Dahlan

Mohammed Dahlan is the head of Palestinian preventive security in Gaza and a veteran of talks with his Israeli security counterparts. He speaks fluent Hebrew, much of which he learned during the time spent in Israeli prisons. He was deported and went to Tunis to join the Palestinian leadership as it sought to orchestrate the first intifada -- the uprising against Israeli military forces the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank between 1987 and 1993. Considered a protege of the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, he was a negotiator at the United States-sponsored peace talks at Camp David in 2000.

Dahlan was born in 1961 in Gaza.

Jibril Rajoub

Jibril Rajoub is head of Palestinian preventive security in the West Bank. He also has been involved in negotiations on security issues with the Israelis. That has given him excellent contacts not only with his counterparts in Israeli security but also with the CIA, which has sporadically been overseeing Israeli-Palestinian security contacts.

Like many Palestinians of his generation, he has spent time in Israeli prisons (17 years) and is fluent in Hebrew. Deported by Israel, he followed the PLO leadership into exile in Tunis and worked on coordinating the first intifada. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said in a February 2002 interview with the Egyptian magazine Al-Mussawar that Rajoub and Dahlan are "close to my heart." Rajoub was born in 1953 in the West Bank.

Saeb Erakat

Erakat is the minister of local governments for the Palestinian Authority and the chief negotiator for the Palestinians in negotiations with the Israelis. Erakat was born in Jerusalem in 1955. He received a master's degree in political science from the University of San Francisco and a doctorate in peace studies from England's Bradford University.

Erakat taught political science at An-Najah University in the West Bank town of Nablus and was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 1996.

Marwan Barghouti

Barghouti is the leader of Fatah in the West Bank. Considered a charismatic, popular and dynamic speaker, he emerged as an influential leader during the first Palestinian intifada from 1987 to 1993. Barghouti has been accused by Israel of having links to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a military offshoot of the Fatah movement which has claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings in Israel and been named as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

Barghouti, considered close to late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, was arrested on April 15, 2002, by the Israel Defense Forces in Ramallah during Israel's self-described campaign to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure of Palestinian militants in the West Bank. He was convicted in Israel of planning or participating in terrorist attacks on Israelis and is now serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison. Barghouti was born in 1959 in the West Bank.

Nabil Shaath

Shaath is minister of planning and international cooperation for the Palestinian Authority. He plays an important role in the Palestinian Authority's relations with the West.


PALESTINIAN REFUGEES

Palestinian refugees in Mideast countries and nearby areas Note: Two U.N. refugee organizations track the number of Palestinian refugees -- those seeking asylum in other countries or those living in traditional refugee camps. Many other Palestinians, whom the United Nations does not classify as refugees, have integrated into new societies and may hold passports from other countries.

It is therefore difficult to determine an accurate population count of Palestinians living around the world. During 2000, some 900 Palestinians applied for asylum in more than 40 countries, with the highest number of applicants received by Denmark (260) and Australia (130). **Figures from 1998 *Figures not available Source: The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine

PEACE PROCESS WORLD PLAYERS

PEACE PROCESS PLAYERS (WORLD)

William Burns U.S. assistant secretary of state Washington's new envoy to the Mideast peace process.

William Burns, had served as ambassador to Jordan since 1998 after beginning his diplomatic career there 16 years earlier. President George W. Bush has nominated Burns as assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, although his nomination is still awaiting Senate confirmation. At a confirmation hearing before the Senate, Burns advocated a strong U.S. role in the push toward solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Because of his long service in Jordan and close relations with King Abdullah II, he is regarded as sensitive to Arab positions among Arabs who have often complained that the United States shows a marked bias toward Israel.

George W. Bush U.S. president

George W. Bush, the former Texas governor and son of former President George Bush, succeeded Bill Clinton as president of the United States on January 20, 2001 -- in the midst of increasing violence between Palestinians and Israelis. Bush initially favored a less active role in Mideast affairs for the United States than that of his predecessor, but he has shifted his position somewhat following the release of a report from former U.S. Sen.

George Mitchell's investigative committee that urged quick implementation of several proposals aimed at ending the violence. Bush had spoken with the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, urging both men to do whatever is necessary to stop the violence, but he has so far allowed Secretary of State Colin Powell to take the lead on the issues.

Bill Clinton Former U.S. president

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton stepped up efforts in the final months of his second term to achieve a breakthrough agreement between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Despite going to great lengths, Clinton failed to bring the two sides to agreement before he left office January 20 and was succeeded by President George W. Bush.

In October 1998, Clinton played host to a summit in Wye Mills, Maryland, that resulted in an agreement between Arafat and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Fully implementing the terms of the Wye accords -- including a release of Palestinian prisoners and an Israeli troop withdrawal from Palestinian territory in exchange for better security for Israel -- proved more difficult.

Clinton did manage some powerful symbolic gestures, however, such as paying a historic visit in December 1998 to the Palestinian self-ruled territory of Gaza -- the first by an American president.

Colin Powell U.S. secretary of state

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is a retired four-star general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, serving under Presidents George Bush -- father of current President George W. Bush -- and Bill Clinton. In that capacity, he oversaw Operation Desert Storm and the victory over Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Previously, Powell served as assistant to the president for National Security Affairs under the senior Bush and President Ronald Reagan. As the top U.S. diplomat, Powell was one of the point persons for U.S. policy on the Middle East and he was regarded as a moderate in the Bush administration. In November 2004, after Bush was re-elected, Powell announced that he would leave the administration. Bush has nominated National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to replace him.

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni

U.S. envoy to the Middle East Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the new United States envoy to the Middle East, is trying to broker a cease-fire between the Israelis and Palestinians.The four-star general, who retired in 2000 after serving as commander of the U.S. Central Command, was the leader of Operation Desert Fox, the 1998 air campaign aimed at forcing Iraq to comply with United Nations weapons inspectors.Zinni, a Purple Heart recipient who served in Vietnam, also supervised the 1995 withdrawal of U.S. forces from Somalia and the military reprisal following the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa.

His diplomatic experience includes work with Ethiopia and Eritrea to resolve a border dispute.

AGREEMENTS PEACE PROCESS (GENEVA ACCORD)

Reaffirming their obligation to conduct themselves in conformity with the norms of international law and the Charter of the United Nations; Confirming that this Agreement is concluded within the framework of the Middle East peace process initiated in Madrid in October 1991, the Declaration of Principles of September 13, 1993, the subsequent agreements including the Interim Agreement of September 1995, the Wye River Memorandum of October 1998 and the Sharm El-Sheikh Memorandum of September 4, 1999, and the permanent status negotiations including the Camp David Summit of July 2000, the Clinton Ideas of December 2000, and the Taba Negotiations of January 2001;

Reiterating their commitment to United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 and confirming their understanding that this Agreement is based on, will lead to, and - by its fulfillment - will constitute the full implementation of these resolutions and to the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in all its aspects;Declaring that this Agreement constitutes the realization of the permanent status peace component envisaged in President Bush's speech of June 24, 2002 and in the Quartet Roadmap process;

Declaring that this Agreement marks the historic reconciliation between the Palestinians and Israelis, and paves the way to reconciliation between the Arab World and Israel and the establishment of normal, peaceful relations between the Arab states and Israel in accordance with the relevant clauses of the Beirut Arab League Resolution of March 28, 2002; and Resolved to pursue the goal of attaining a comprehensive regional peace, thus contributing to stability, security, development and prosperity throughout the region;

DESPUTED PEACE PROCESS SITES

DISPUTED SITES IN THE ISRAELI / ARABS PEACE PROCESS.

A light too bright No other place on Earth has stirred such passions as the barren strip of land on the edge of the Arabian Desert that has been called Palestine, the Holy Land and Israel. The harsh beauty of the landscape is infused with holiness and bitterness. In his book, "In a Desert Land," from Abbeville Press Publishers, photographer Neil Folberg captures some of this contradiction.

The dazzling white stone of Jerusalem's buildings reflects so much light at the height of the day that it "blinds rather than illuminates," Folberg writes. But at dawn, he says, the ancient city reveals itself: "For a moment, the light seems to burn everything it touches, but when that moment of brilliance passes, you are still standing, unconsumed and at peace with the world."A note from the publisherIn the foreground is the Western Wall, a remnant of the Second Temple, destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70.

Status of Jerusalem

Jerusalem is the center for three of the world's largest religions. The status of Jerusalem is one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Ground zero in the
dispute is a hill in Jerusalem known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, or the Noble Sanctuary. That precious piece of real estate is believed to contain the ruins of Judaism's holiest temple, on top of which stands the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque, Islam's third-holiest site.

The 1999 Camp David talks broke down in part over the issue of which side would have sovereignty over the land on which the holy sites stand. The terms of the U.N. partition of 1947 call for Jerusalem to be an international city shared between a Jewish and Palestinian state.

Although Jews in British Mandate Palestine and elsewhere accepted the partition plan, Arabs rejected it and armies from surrounding countries invaded. Israel annexed West Jerusalem after gaining control during the 1948 war of independence while East Jerusalem, which includes the Dome of the Rock, came under Jordanian control.

In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured East Jerusalem along with the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights. Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980. Today, East Jerusalem is primarily populated by Arabs and West Jerusalem by Jewish residents.

Israeli viewpoint

Ceding control even over the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, or the Old City, is a red line for many Israelis, who consider Jerusalem to be the heart of Zionism and an important part of Jewish identity. They want to ensure that they maintain access to sites they consider sacred, and they are not willing to negotiate on this point.

Palestinian viewpoint

Besides Palestinians' historic territorial claims on Jerusalem's Old City, the presence there of the Islamic holy sites makes the issue a red line not only for Palestinians but for the entire Arab and Muslim world. Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, who died in November 2004, was unable to compromise at Camp David on his demand for sovereignty over the sites and the eastern portion of the city.

The Dome of the Rock

was built as a mosque by Caliph Abd al-Malik in 691. The site is called the Temple Mount by Jews and Haram as-Sharif, or Noble Sanctuary, by Muslims. It is Judaism's holiest site and Islam's third holiest site behind Mecca and Medina.

Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The hill on the left is the Mount of Olives. The foreground structure dates from the Crusades.

The Mar Saba Monastery east of Bethlehem.

This Greek Orthodox monastery was founded during the Byzantine period.

Ain Kelt.

This spring is the source of water for the Wadi Kelt, a ravine that begins on the east side of the Mount of Olives and runs nearly to Jericho.

Village of Carmel.

This was a Jewish village until a new settlement was established nearby after the 1967 war. Now it is occupied by Arabs. View south from Jebel HarmunView from Har Hetzron to the east.

The Judean desert is in the foreground.

In the background are the mountains of Jordan.

Salt flats on the Dead Sea.

At 1,312 feet (398 meters) below sea level, the Dead Sea is the lowest body of water in the world.

Har Sodom and the Dead Sea.

2003 ROAD MAP TO PEACE

2003 ROADMAP TO PEACE PROCESS.

The conflict raged despite a series of diplomatic efforts. Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah put forth a peace plan in which Arab states would recognize Israel's right to exist in exchange for its return to pre-1967 borders. The U.S., E.U., U.N. and Russia later submitted a three-phase plan calling for a Palestinian state and conclusive peace accord by 2005. But Israeli and Palestinian officials failed to reach any major agreements.

'Road Map' to peace a new step for Mideast 2003 The second intifada continued with Palestinian suicide bombings taking place in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Israel retaliated against what it said are known Palestinian terrorists and the homes of suicide bombers. Israelis returned incumbent prime minister Ariel Sharon to power in a January general election.

The main opposition Labor party saw its public support collapse, after its leader Amram Mitzna campaigned on a plan to withdraw Jewish settlers and Israeli soldiers from Gaza and to resume negotiations with the Palestinians, including Yasser Arafat.

2003 ROAD MAP TO PEACE

'Road Map' to peace a new step for Mideast 2003 The second intifada continued with Palestinian suicide bombings taking place in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Israel retaliated against what it said are known Palestinian terrorists and the homes of suicide bombers. Israelis returned incumbent prime minister Ariel Sharon to power in a January general election.

The main opposition Labor party saw its public support collapse, after its leader Amram Mitzna campaigned on a plan to withdraw Jewish settlers and Israeli soldiers from Gaza and to resume negotiations with the Palestinians, including Yasser Arafat.

ROAD MAP TEXT


A PERFORMANCE-BASED ROADMAP TO A PERMANENT TWO-STATE SOLUTION TO THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT.

The following is a performance-based and goal-driven roadmap, with clear phases, timelines, target dates, and benchmarks aiming at progress through reciprocal steps by the two parties in the political, security, economic, humanitarian, and institution-building fields, under the auspices of the Quartet.

The destination is a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005, as presented in President Bush’s speech of 24 June, and welcomed by the EU, Russia and the UN in the 16 July and 17 September Quartet Ministerial statements.

A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established, and a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement as described below.

The Quartet will assist and facilitate implementation of the plan, starting in Phase I, including direct discussions between the parties as required. The plan establishes a realistic timeline for implementation. However, as a performance-based plan, progress will require and depend upon the good faith efforts of the parties, and their compliance with each of the obligations outlined below. Should the parties perform their obligations rapidly, progress within and through the phases may come sooner than indicated in the plan. Non-compliance with obligations will impede progress.

A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations of the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242,338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah – endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit – calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement.

This initiative is a vital element of international efforts to promote a comprehensive peace on all tracks, including the Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli tracks. The Quartet will meet regularly at senior levels to evaluate the parties' performance on implementation of the plan. In each phase, the parties are expected to perform their obligations in parallel, unless otherwise indicated.


PHASE I:

ENDING TERROR AND VIOLENCE, NORMALIZING PALESTINIAN LIFE, AND BUILDING PALESTINIAN INSTITUTIONS PRESENT TO MAY 2003.

In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below; such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel. Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures.

Israel takes all necessary steps to help normalize Palestinian life. Israel withdraws from
Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status
quo that existed at that time, as security performance and cooperation progress. Israel also
freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.

At the outset of Phase I:

• Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.
• Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians.

SECURITY

• Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible
efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.
• Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.
• GOI takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations, attacks on civilians;
confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property, as a punitive measure or to facilitate Israeli construction; destruction of Palestinian institutions and infrastructure; and other measures specified in the Tenet work plan.
• Relying on existing mechanisms and on-the-ground resources, Quartet representatives
begin informal monitoring and consult with the parties on establishment of a formal monitoring mechanism and its implementation.
• Implementation, as previously agreed, of U.S. rebuilding, training and resumed security cooperation plan in collaboration with outside oversight board (U.S.–Egypt–Jordan). Quartet support for efforts to achieve a lasting, comprehensive cease-fire. All Palestinian security organizations are consolidated into three services reporting to an empowered Interior Minister.
Restructured/retrained Palestinian security forces and IDF counterparts progressively resume security cooperation and other undertakings in implementation of the Tenet work plan, including regular senior-level meetings, with the participation of U.S. security officials.
• Arab states cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups
supporting and engaging in violence and terror.
• All donors providing budgetary support for the Palestinians channel these funds through the Palestinian Ministry of Finance's Single Treasury Account.
• As comprehensive security performance moves forward, IDF withdraws progressively from areas occupied since September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed prior to September 28, 2000. Palestinian security forces redeploy to areas vacated by IDF.

PALESTINIAN INSTITUTION-BUILDING

• Immediate action on credible process to produce draft constitution for Palestinian statehood. As rapidly as possible, constitutional committee circulates draft Palestinian constitution, based on strong parliamentary democracy and cabinet with empowered prime minister, for public comment/debate. Constitutional committee proposes draft document for submission after elections for approval by appropriate Palestinian institutions.
• Appointment of interim prime minister or cabinet with empowered executive authority/decision-making body.
• GOI fully facilitates travel of Palestinian officials for PLC and Cabinet sessions, internationally supervised security retraining, electoral and other reform activity, and other supportive measures related to the reform efforts.
• Continued appointment of Palestinian ministers empowered to undertake fundamental
reform. Completion of further steps to achieve genuine separation of powers, including any necessary Palestinian legal reforms for this purpose.
• Establishment of independent Palestinian election commission. PLC reviews and
revises election law.
• Palestinian performance on judicial, administrative, and economic benchmarks, as established by the International Task Force on Palestinian Reform.
• As early as possible, and based upon the above measures and in the context of open debate and transparent candidate selection/electoral campaign based on a free, multiparty process, Palestinians hold free, open, and fair elections.
• GOI facilitates Task Force election assistance, registration of voters, movement of candidates and voting officials. Support for NGOs involved in the election process.
• GOI reopens Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and other closed Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem based on a commitment that these institutions operate strictly in accordance with prior agreements between the parties.

HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE

• Israel takes measures to improve the humanitarian situation. Israel and Palestinians
implement in full all recommendations of the Bertini report to improve humanitarian conditions, lifting curfews and easing restrictions on movement of persons and goods, and allowing full, safe, and unfettered access of international and humanitarian personnel.
• AHLC reviews the humanitarian situation and prospects for economic development in the West Bank and Gaza and launches a major donor assistance effort, including to the reform effort.
• GOI and PA continue revenue clearance process and transfer of funds, including arrears, in accordance with agreed, transparent monitoring mechanism.

CIVIL SOCIETY

• Continued donor support, including increased funding through PVOs/NGOs, for people to people programs, private sector development and civil society initiatives.

SETTLEMENTS

• GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
• Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including
natural growth of settlements).

PHASE II: TRANSITION JUNE 2003-DECEMBER 2003

In the second phase, efforts are focused on the option of creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty, based on the new constitution, as a way station to a permanent status settlement. As has been noted, this goal can be achieved when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror, willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty.

With such a leadership, reformed civil institutions and security structures, the Palestinians will have the active support of the Quartet and the broader international community in establishing an independent, viable, state. Progress into Phase II will be based upon the consensus judgment of the Quartet of whether conditions are appropriate to proceed, taking into account performance of both parties. Furthering and sustaining efforts to normalize Palestinian lives and build Palestinian institutions, Phase II starts after Palestinian elections and ends with possible
creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders in 2003.

Its primary goals are continued comprehensive security performance and effective security
cooperation, continued normalization of Palestinian life and institution-building, further
building on and sustaining of the goals outlined in Phase I, ratification of a democratic
Palestinian constitution, formal establishment of office of prime minister, consolidation of
political reform, and the creation of a Palestinian state with provisional borders.

• INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE:

Convened by the Quartet, in consultation with the parties, immediately after the successful conclusion of Palestinian elections, to support Palestinian economic recovery and launch a process, leading to establishment of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders.
􀂾 Such a meeting would be inclusive, based on the goal of a comprehensive Middle East peace (including between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon), and based on the principles described in the preamble to this document.
􀂾 Arab states restore pre-intifada links to Israel (trade offices, etc.).
􀂾 Revival of multilateral engagement on issues including regional water resources, environment, economic development, refugees, and arms control issues.
• New constitution for democratic, independent Palestinian state is finalized and approved by appropriate Palestinian institutions. Further elections, if required, should follow approval of the new constitution.
• Empowered reform cabinet with office of prime minister formally established, consistent with draft constitution.
• Continued comprehensive security performance, including effective security cooperation on the bases laid out in Phase I.
• Creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders through a process of Israeli-Palestinian engagement, launched by the international conference. As part of this process, implementation of prior agreements, to enhance maximum territorial contiguity, including further action on settlements in conjunction with establishment of a Palestinian state with provisional borders.
• Enhanced international role in monitoring transition, with the active, sustained, and
operational support of the Quartet.
• Quartet members promote international recognition of Palestinian state, including possible UN membership.

PHASE III:

PERMANENT STATUS AGREEMENT AND END OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

Folks heres were all hell breaks loose when and if it gets to this stage and not switch to the Geneva Accord.

2004 – 2005
Progress into Phase III, based on consensus judgment of Quartet, and taking into account actions of both parties and Quartet monitoring. Phase III objectives are consolidation of reform and stabilization of Palestinian institutions, sustained, effective Palestinian security performance, and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at a permanent status agreement in 2005.

• SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: Convened by Quartet, in consultation with the
parties, at beginning of 2004 to endorse agreement reached on an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and formally to launch a process with the active, sustained, and operational support of the Quartet, leading to a final, permanent status resolution in 2005, including on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements; and, to support progress toward a comprehensive Middle East settlement between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria, to be achieved as soon as possible.
• Continued comprehensive, effective progress on the reform agenda laid out by the Task
Force in preparation for final status agreement.
• Continued sustained and effective security performance, and sustained, effective security cooperation on the bases laid out in Phase I.
• International efforts to facilitate reform and stabilize Palestinian institutions and the
Palestinian economy, in preparation for final status agreement.
• Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends the Israel-
Palestinian conflict in 2005, through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397, that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide, and fulfills the vision of two states, Israel and sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security.
• Arab state acceptance of full normal relations with Israel and security for all the states of the region in the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.

2002 REOCCUPIED TERRITORY

March 29, 2002 Israel invades Palestinian territories, reoccupies Palestinian cities.

Violence intensifies despite diplomatic efforts 2002 The situation in the Mideast worsened, with a seemingly constant barrage of suicide bombings and Israeli military actions. Israeli forces invaded Palestinian refugee camps to flush out what Israelis say are militants, while multiple suicide bombings were carried out by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a military offshoot of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement.

The conflict raged despite a series of diplomatic efforts. Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah put forth a peace plan in which Arab states would recognize Israel's right to exist in exchange for its return to pre-1967 borders. The U.S., E.U., U.N. and Russia later submitted a three-phase plan calling for a Palestinian state and conclusive peace accord by 2005. But Israeli and Palestinian officials failed to reach any major agreements.

2001 ARAB INTIFADA RENEWED (AL-AQSA)

Sept. 28, 2000 Ariel Sharon visits Temple Mount in Jerusalem; second Intifada erupts.

Feb. 6, 2001 Ariel Sharon defeats Ehud Barak in Israeli elections.

Sharon victory and renewed violence 2001 President Clinton left office in January without bringing both parties together in a final peace agreement. After months of stepped-up violence between Palestinians and Israelis, Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon defeated Ehud Barak by a landslide in Israel's February 6 special election for prime minister.

The September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States sparked a renewed interest in the Mideast peace process. But violence erupted again in December after explosions in Jerusalem and the northern Israeli port city of Haifa, which killed at least 25 Israelis and three suicide bombers. The attacks led to major Israeli military strikes against Palestinian targets in the West Bank and Gaza, and a new round of violence started, stalling the peace process once more.

2000 CAMP DAVID 2 ACCORDS

May 17, 1999 Ehud Barak defeats Netanyahu in Israeli elections.

July 11-26, 2000 Barak and Arafat negotiate at Camp David; President Clinton mediates; fail to reach agreement on final status issues.

Impasse, more fighting 2000 Clinton moderated a summit between Barak and Arafat at Camp David in July as the September 13 deadline for a final peace accord approached. The talks ended after 15 days with no agreement. Arafat rejected Barak's offer for control of most, but not all, the territory Israel occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War.

In late September, Israeli right-wing opposition leader Ariel Sharon led a delegation to a Jerusalem site that Jews and Muslims consider sacred. Crowds of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank began attacking Israeli security forces after the controversial visit. The violence continued on both sides. Barak's support eroded, and he resigned in December, calling for a special prime minister election to be held in February 2001.

July 25, 2000

Camp David II: 'Everyone Wants A Piece Of Jerusalem, Not The Peace Of Jerusalem' Writing in advance of today's breaking news that Camp David ended without an agreement, the world's media predicted that the meeting would most likely conclude either with a "framework agreement" that sets the stage for a final peace, or with a "partial agreement" that leaves the future of Jerusalem and other contentious issues for later.

Nevertheless, commentators had high praise for President Clinton's personal involvement in the "marathon, around the clock negotiations" and for his "determination" to forge an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that includes Jerusalem. "Whatever the outcome of the Camp David negotiations, history will credit Clinton with having the courage to make a serious effort to try to help the parties resolve this conflict," a Tunisian paper declared. "In his last days as president, William Jefferson Clinton has at least made an enormous contribution to an idea that the world, seven years ago, before Oslo, thought impossible: that Jews and Arabs could live in peace," a Dutch paper remarked.

A majority of writers held out hope, apparently until the end, that the president's"extraordinary interest" in the peace talks would keep them on course. Many, judged that the alternative--a failed summit which would lead to more frustration, and potentially more violence--was unthinkable. These were regional views:

ISRAEL, PALESTINIANS: Israel's mainstream, secular press argued that its nation's "heart-wrenching concessions" on Jerusalem, including the Old City, have not been met "by similar Arab flexibility." Major Palestinian dailies, for their part, highlighted what they described as America's continuing "bias" toward Israel. Independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam ominously called for the mobilization of the Palestinian public saying, "It is the best way to make international public opinion see and hear what the Palestinian people want and also to confront Israeli military hostility, Barak's no's and biased U.S. pressure."

ARABS: Noting that PLO Chairman Arafat represents not only the Palestinians but also the wider Arab world, editorialists in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait insisted that Arab sovereignty over East Jerusalem is non-negotiable. A Kuwaiti writer warned that Mr. Arafat must not realize his dream of Palestinian statehood at the expense of Jerusalem.

EUROPE: Pundits applauded that "the taboo" of putting Jerusalem on the negotiating table had been broken at Camp David, but "too late," it was feared.

ASIA: Beijing's official Communist Party People's Daily interpreted the summit as an attempt by the U.S. to take advantage of the political changes in the Middle East, in order to "strengthen its dominance in the region."

AFRICA: South Africa's liberal, independent Natal Witness bemoaned that everyone wants "a piece of Jerusalem, not the peace of Jerusalem" and that the "devotion of the faithful," ironically, might well be "the factor which precludes the true peace" of the city.

WESTERN HEMISPHERE: Observers focused on the U.S.' role as aid donor in the Middle East. A Canadian paper argued that as the one who "pays the piper," the U.S. should be able "to call the tune" more in the region. An Argentinean daily complained that recent U.S. arms sales to its Arab "allies" will only help fuel "a new war" should peace not break out.

EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 56 reports from 27 countries July 21-25. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.

MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "The Jerusalem Myth"
Yael Paz-Melamed commented in popular, pluralist Maariv (7/25): "The profound significance of Camp David 2000 is its unprecedented attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in its entirety. And this, in fact, is the essence of the Zionist dream.... Only an agreement which would return those Arab areas to the Palestinians and leave us with our Jerusalem can
strengthen the city, politically, diplomatically, economically and socially."

"Barak's Way Of Narrowing Gaps"

Hagai Huberman commented in religious/conservative Hatzofe (7/25): "Israelis have learned that whenever the news media solemnly report 'progress' at Camp David and 'narrowing of differences,' it's a safe bet that the Israelis have made additional concessions and moved yet closer to the rigid, never-changing Palestinian positions.... Day in day out, the Israelis are
learning about more Israeli concessions in the city [Jerusalem]--with no Palestinian reciprocity to match."

"True Peace"
Mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot editorialized (7/25): "Quite a few Israelis are now ready to consider a compromise in Jerusalem...and work out a new sovereignty formula even in the Old City--a matter which until recently was totally taboo in Israeli politics. But is our flexibility being met by similar Arab flexibility? We have yet to discern a fundamental, democratic
change in Arab attitude toward Israel. The Arabs have yet to stop considering Israel an alien, occupying, short-lived phenomenon in the region.... Peace may involve significant Israeli concessions in Jerusalem. But peace must also involve something even more important. The day we sign a peace agreement, Palestinian and Arab schools should begin to include in their curricula a special chapter about Jewish national heritage in this land. True reconciliation cannot be a one way process."

"The Jerusalem Trial"
Senior analyst Ron Ben-Yishai wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot (7/25): "At this historic turning point, Jerusalem is the most difficult issue in order to attain a permanent settlement with the Palestinians. Only by reaching a national, regional and global consensus on Jerusalem will Israel be able to free itself of threats to its very survival.... As long as the Muslims do not receive their share of Jerusalem, Iranian and Iraqi missiles will continue to threaten Israel, and Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah will keep their terror attacks against us.... That is why fair sharing of sovereignty over east Jerusalem, including the Old City, is a must in terms of our long-range national interests.

And we had better do it now instead of putting it off, because the longer we wait the weaker we become."

"42 Percent Of Israelis Would Support A Deal In Reported Configuration"
A poll in popular, pluralist Maariv (7/24) gauging Israelis on a hypothetical Israeli-Palestinian deal along the lines of recent press reports, showed that 50 percent oppose it, 42 percent support it and eight percent do not know. Superstar Yehoram Ga'on, Israel's 'national singer,'
told Yediot that 'since for all practical purposes, Jerusalem is already divided,' he supported Israeli concessions in Jerusalem."

"Arafat Should Grab Barak's Offer"
Analyst Dan Margalit commented in independent Ha'aretz (7/24): "If Prime Minister Barak returns to Israel without a signed peace treaty, he will come under fire from the ardent supporters of peace with the Palestinians.... If, however, Barak returns to Israel with the draft peace agreement, he may expect a struggle without precedent in the history of peace accords.... He is going to find it hard to persuade the majority of Israelis to go beyond where they have traditionally drawn the line.... Barak has agreed to far-reaching concessions.... In the foreseeable future, no one will offer the Palestinians a better deal.... Should Arafat choose violence...Israel will respond with all its might.... Having felt themselves personally humiliated at the sight of
their prime minister bending over backward at Camp David, Israelis will give him total support to use all required means to combat Palestinian rioting."

"Ehud Barak Invites Violence"
Nationalist Hatzofe editorialized (7/24): "Prime Minister Barak should not have gone to this destructive summit meeting at Camp David. What is most maddening is that it was Barak himself who invited it and lobbied for it.... Letting the Palestinians win control of the Temple Mount and letting Palestinian refugees back into Israel are two extremely dangerous,
violence-triggering developments. To transfer control of the Temple Mount to the Palestinians is clearly and plainly an invitation to widespread violence--also Jewish violence.... It is tantamount to Prime Minister Barak dropping a nuclear bomb on the Temple Mount."

"The Real Red Lines"
Analyst Yosef Goell wrote in the independent Jerusalem Post (7/24): "I have more than a suspicion that the 33-year old mantra of post-Six-Day War 'Greater Jerusalem' remaining Israel's sole and eternal capital, which trips so easily from every politician's tongue, is for most Israelis exactly that--a mantra that can be discarded when circumstances indicate that it would
be to Israel's advantage to do so. To which I would add that Israel's making such a heart-wrenching concession...would have a dramatic impact on the world's view of who is the intransigent party and who the true seeker of peace."

WEST BANK: "U.S.' Biased Role Continues"
Hani Al Masri commented in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (7/25): "The continuation of the American bias toward Israel will not lead to the success of the Camp David summit, but it will encourage Israel to go further in its stubbornness and its refusal to pay the price of peace, which is full withdrawal from all Palestinian lands occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and the right of return. Thus, if the American administration wanted to make peace, it must practice the necessary pressure on the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, to convince him that the settlement he desires under his well-known no's is not regarded a settlement or as peace."

"Futility Of U.S. Suggestion"
Ashraf Al Ajrami opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (7/25): "Nobody knows how the American suggestion will settle the issues regarding the Palestinian demand for sovereignty over the occupied East Jerusalem, because this suggestion is based on the Israeli position and keeps the real sovereignty over Jerusalem in the Israeli hands."

"Need For A Comprehensive Palestinian Public Mobilization"
Talal Okal asserted in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (7/24): "It is required that millions of Palestinians go out in the streets to express in one voice their position and stick to their principle of refusing to abandon any one of them. It is the best way to make international public opinion see and hear what the Palestinian people want and to confront Israeli military hostility, Barak's no's and biased U.S. pressure. The comprehensive Palestinian public mobilization will encourage the Arab public, which can make up for the weakness of the Arab governments and provide more unfettered support for the Palestinian negotiators. Therefore, I think a meeting of the PLO's executive body or an urgent meeting of national and Islamic powers, in order to define their responsibilities toward the urgent and comprehensive mobilization, will have an influence on the talks."

"Moment Of Truth"
Fuad Abu Hejla opined in independent, semi-official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (7/24): "Barak may adopt a decision to push his army to engage in confrontations with our people and our national security forces. And because the Israeli prime minister does not judge matters appropriately, the explosion may be more powerful than what Israelis and Americans expect. We will not
provoke an explosion and we wish to avoid it, but we call for early alertness in order not to be surprised by anything when the moment comes."

"Importance Of Arab And Islamic Support"
Independent, moderate Al-Quds editorialized (7/24): "If the Jerusalem issue in its religious and political dimensions forms the core issue of the current conflict at Camp David, it is clear that a solution to this issue must consider both the religious and political aspects (of the problem) and not ignore the positions of the Arab and Islamic world, or the political and sovereign rights of the Palestinian people."

LEBANON: "The Palestinians And Arab Referendum"
An editorial by Deputy Editor-in-Chief Mohamed Mashmoushi in pro-Syria, Arab nationalist As-Safir held (7/25): "The petition sent by a group of prominent Palestinian personalities...does not express anything except the 'fear of tomorrow.' Fear that Yasser Arafat might give up what he does not own: the rights of the Palestinian people.... The six principles in the petition
include the right of return in accordance with UNSCR 194, the right to establish an independent, democratic Palestinian state, and, most importantly, the need to hold a referendum of the Palestinian people over Camp David II.... It seems that in Camp David II, American public opinion is what matters most to President Clinton.... For the Palestinians and the Arabs, Palestinian and Arab public opinion should likewise be what matters most."

"Renewed Talk About An Arab Summit"
An editorial by Nasir Al-Asa'ad in opposition, Hariri-owned Al-Mustaqbal remarked (7/25): "Most diplomatic circles believe that prolonging Camp David II reflects the American administration's wish to avoid failure, and its desire to find a solution that would, at least, keep the door open at the Israeli-Palestinian track.... The same sources say that Arafat, who stuck to his positions at Camp David, will return to his homeland much stronger on the level of Palestinian public opinion.... The question is: Will Arafat, who will be armed with Palestinian public support, announce Palestinian statehood on September 13?... No doubt, such an announcement will violate the status quo that the United States wants to prevail in the region. However, avoiding such an announcement will ignite the Palestinian public against Arafat....
"What Arafat really needs is Arab support and solidarity. Informed diplomatic sources say that there is renewed talk of holding an Arab summit in the coming phase that would create some kind of comprehensive Arab reconciliation with Arafat."

"'Geneva Summit' Will Not Be Repeated, Camp David Seeks 'Emergency Exit'"
An editorial by Shawqi Ashkouti in loyalist Nida' Al-Watan said (7/24): "Would 'Jerusalem' be the direct cause of exploding the Camp David summit, as 'Lake Tiberius' was the direct cause for blasting the Geneva summit between President Clinton and late Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad? Would the fate of the Camp David summit resemble the fate of the Geneva summit,
meaning failure, or would it be 'a half failure'?

SYRIA: "The Bazaar At Camp David" Fouad Mardoud, chief editor of the government-owned Syria Times, held (7/25): "The feeling in the Arab world is that when Washington tries to practice its mediation role between Israel and the Arabs, one can be pretty sure that what comes out will not present a genuine settlement that matches the principals of the UN resolutions. What usually happens is that the Israelis agree to split the differences between the hard-liners and the so-called relative moderates in Israel--leaving the other party, especially the Palestinians--hung-out to dry. Meanwhile they turn the negotiation venue into a marketplace to exercise bazaar tactics with the Arabs. Seeing the Palestinians suffering from bazaar tactics during and before Camp David II, Syria has to reiterate its determination to maintain its style of negotiation with Israel: First define the final goal of the negotiations,
withdrawal to the June 4 lines of 1967, and then negotiate the details that would lead to a just, lasting and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

"Constants Of The Peace Process Do Not Change"
An unsigned editorial in government-owned Al-Ba'th stated (7/23): "The current situation is not ripe for any real and serious move toward reviving the peace process in the Middle East, as some Israeli sources are trying to imply. The situation seems to be frozen on different tracks and Israel is still very far from moving the peace process on the right and natural path. The last
ten days of the Camp David proceedings show clear evidence of the intransigence of Barak's government.... It also demonstrates Barak's government's expansionist, aggressive greed, especially in wanting to make Jerusalem the unified capital of Israel and not removing the settlements on occupied Palestinian land."

EGYPT: "Comprehensive Peace Is Now Or Practically Never"
Kamel Zohairy wrote in pro-government Al Gomhouriya (7/25): "At crisis time, the not-good shepherd [the United States] of the peace process presents a compromise. American diplomacy created vague expressions...such as 'joint sovereignty' over Jerusalem...that meant full Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, while Palestinians gain incomplete control. However, this is a
difficult solution for politicians, because Jerusalem is not only Palestinian or Arab, but is important for all Muslims and Christians in the world.... Talking about a compromise does not apply to Jerusalem, because either eastern Jerusalem is fully Arab, or it is not. Even if the talks end with postponing the issue, this is no solution because 2000 is the year of settling the
Arab-Israeli dispute. Either there will be full and comprehensive peace, or a long dispute lasting another 50 years."

"The Road To Jerusalem"
Laila Hafez, columnist for pro-government Al Ahram, stated (7/24): "The road to Jerusalem is fraught with danger. Whatever the result of the Camp David summit, the 'city of peace' will not know peace yet…. According to Arafat, no Arab leader has been born who can concede it. As to Barak, he knows that his country may suffer a civil war if he concedes the city Israel
occupied in 1967, and against whose Arab inhabitants it has practiced, since then, all kinds of 'administrative ethnic cleansing.'... Despite all these threats on the road to Jerusalem, it is the only way that should be treaded by those who want to achieve real peace in the region."

"Clinton Is Eager For Success"
Ahmed El-Guindy, columnist for pro-government Al Akhbar, expressed this view (7/24): "How will this [Camp David] farce end?
With commemorative pictures of Clinton raising both Arafat's and Barak's hands after signing a partial or overall deal…to be added to President Clinton's sentimental and political album? Or will it end with the two delegations carrying their baggage and returning home with failure? Neither failure nor success is certain, since President Clinton may find a solution to the crisis
of Jerusalem that satisfies both parties. If this solution is found, other solutions may be also found…. If President Clinton is eager for the success of the summit, he should abide by international legitimacy recognizing Palestinian rights to their independent state, the return of refugees, fixed borders, and, most importantly, to Arab Jerusalem. He should convince Israelis
of the need for peace. He should be strong toward Barak…. Only then, can he look for a good photographer to take the last picture in his album."

JORDAN: "What If The Negotiations Fail?"
Fahd Fanek wrote on the back page of semi-official, influential Al-Ra'y (7/24): "What if the negotiations fail? Has the Jordanian government prepared itself for such a thing? If the Camp David summit meeting concludes without achieving any positive results, it would lead to the restart of the Palestinian intifada in the West Bank and Gaza, to the outbreak of violence in Israel, to the unilateral declaration of the Palestinian State, to the intervention of the Israeli army and to big immigration. Politically, Israel and the United States would try to revisit the idea of solving Israel's Palestinian refugee problem at the expense of Jordan on the pretext that Jordanians and Palestinians are one people and that the Palestinians make up the majority of
Jordan's population. We must stress the need for establishing the Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Otherwise, we are going to find ourselves defending the state of Jordan and its capital Amman very soon."

"Preparing For What Comes After Camp David"
Mazen Saket wrote on the op-ed page of center-left, influential Al-Dustur (7/23): "Whatever the outcome of the Camp David summit meeting is, it will not restore the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Israel is neither ready nor prepared and certainly is not obliged to do that. Whether the summit meeting succeeds or fails to achieve a solution, the outcome will be
the region's return to tension, conflict, resistance and violence. Such an outcome will put the region at serious risk, from the security, economic and political standpoints. This requires all Arab and Palestinian regimes and forces, particularly in Jordan--as we are the first to be affected by the outcome of the summit meeting--to prepare for handling these results."

KUWAIT: "Palestinian Statehood At The Expense Of Jerusalem?"
Independent Al-Rai Al-Aam published this view (7/24) by Mohammed Al-Rashidi: "What is worrying is that the holiest place is in the hands of a person whose dream is to establish a state
consisting of rundown villages at the expense of Jerusalem. We have noticed from the outset how the Israelis are dominating the negotiations and how Arafat is ready to agree to their terms. He is leading not only the Palestinians but all the Arab nations down a dark tunnel especially in light of rumors that Arafat is willing to overlook the refugees issue. Arafat is only
interested in the establishment of a Palestinian state because, according to him, he cannot stay dangling without it."

SAUDI ARABIA: "Arafat Is Not Alone"
Jeddah-based, conservative Al-Madina ran this editorial (7/25): "No one in the Islamic world will accept concessions on Jerusalem, which affects Arab and Islamic sovereignty over it. As well, no one in the Arab world will accept a solution for the issue of Palestinian refugees that frees Israel from responsibility for the problem.... Arafat is negotiating at Camp David over an
issue which concerns all Arabs and Muslims. He has no mandate to offer substantial concessions that affect the essence of Arab rights. Arafat needs the support of all Arabs in order to restore all Arab rights."

"Progress On Jerusalem Issue"
Riyadh-based, moderate Al-Jazira editorialized (7/24): "It seems that the sole flexibility the Palestinian delegation could show over the issue of Jerusalem was that expressed by the National Palestinian Authority Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, Zaid Abu-Zaid, who stated that we do not reject West Jerusalem, which the Jews occupied in 1948, to be the capital of Israel, if
East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a Palestinian state.... The Palestinian minister added that what he said is an Arab Islamic demand. Although this Palestinian offer...seems to be a concession some might not accept, it represents more than a half-way solution for the issue of Jerusalem and a watermark for the success of the (trilateral) summit."

"U.S., Israeli Views Are Not Identical"
Jeddah-based, conservative Al-Madina opined (7/24): "Regional stability is the sole factor behind American policymakers engagement in an effort to reach a settlement that will be incomplete if it does not produce a real peace. Thus those who rush to draw conclusions that the American and Israeli views are identical on this respect are inaccurate. We can excuse them
because of the double standard-motivated American role which stems from two sources: one is the role of the U.S. foreign policymaking centers, and the other is domestic policy pressures. The real disagreement in this game of reaching a solution...is between the United States and Israel. The challenge that Arabs face is in another theater."

TUNISIA: "Final Status: A Single Entity"
Editor Noureddine Hlaoui wrote in French-language, independent Le Temps (7/24): "It is possible that the government of Israel will, after days of negotiations, make the 'supreme sacrifice' of giving up East Jerusalem. This sacrifice would be followed immediately by demands for Palestinian concessions on other key points.... We must avoid this trap. The final status
agreement must be comprehensive. Although Jerusalem is, of course, a symbol full of historical, religious and political significance, it is not the only issue. Many other matters under discussion are also vital to the future of Palestinians and to the stability of the region. They should not be put aside.... Whatever the outcome of the Camp David negotiations, history will
credit Clinton with having the courage to make a serious effort to try to help the parties resolve this conflict."

EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Clinton Keeps On Talking As Arafat Sends Bleak Signals"
The conservative Daily Telegraph reported (7/25): "President Clinton was engaged in an all-out drive to secure an elusive peace settlement yesterday as attitudes on both sides of the Middle East divide appeared to harden. Upbeat messages from American mediators at the Camp David talks contrasted with bleak signals from the Palestinians that none of the main issues had been resolved. Observers said that Mr. Clinton's four-day absence from the talks may have given the two sides a chance to consider what their final positions would be. But the summit's likely outcome remained unpredictable. The American hosts of the summit say there is no 'calendar-based' deadline, but add that Mr. Clinton will not remain at Camp David unless he believes there is a realistic chance of lasting peace.

GERMANY: "A New Scapegoat"
Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich wrote in an editorial (7/25): "If the summit failed, then Clinton would not only lose face. One only needs to imagine the kind of signal sent out by the realization that even the most powerful man in the world, using all of his strength, is incapable of reconciling two provincial leaders. The result is a paradoxical situation, in which the
mediator himself and not the content of the negotiation takes center stage. And Clinton would most likely also be the scapegoat if Camp David failed. But the Americans will not let things get this far. Thus, the task is clear: Finding a compromise which will allow Clinton to win and keep the other two parties from losing."

"Status Of Jerusalem Will Have To Be Negotiated"
Right-of-center Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten commented (7/24): "Neither Arafat nor Barak is a visionary. Both make their arguments with respect to Jerusalem by focusing on history. While such an approach is understandable emotionally, it is of little help politically. Both Arafat and Barak back up their claims with references to the past and to religion. They do so even
though the new Palestinian state cannot be sufficiently defined by the Koran and Israel cannot trade in its democratic, worldly constitution for the predominance of religious principles. The time of the endless 'nevers' and non-negotiable absolutes is over. If Camp David is supposed to bring peace, then the status of Jerusalem will have to be negotiated. Arafat and Barak will take
this leap--sooner or later."

"Seeking A Formula"
Right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine judged in an editorial (7/22): "The expectation that Camp David will be able to settle the problem of Jerusalem was and is unrealistic. Progress can only be made step by step."

FRANCE: "Israel Overcomes Taboos"
Marc Henry remarked in right-of-center Le Figaro (7/25): "Barak seems to be caught up in the cogwheels and is going much further than he expected during the marathon negotiations at Camp David. Along the way, a whole series of taboos have fallen by the wayside, especially concerning Jerusalem and a possible exchange of territories with the Palestinians. The so-called
'consensus' that has been untouchable for three decades has suddenly been shattered in one day."

"Israel Holds Its Breath Waiting For an Accord"
Pascal Lacorie said in centrist La Tribune (7/25): "Two Camp David summits have put the nerves of Israelis and Palestinians on edge. The suspense hanging over the negotiations have provoked a climate of uncertainty which affects several sections of the economy.... Most analysts believe that a definitive peace accord will have a positive effect on the market, especially for
attracting foreign investments, but no one is very hopeful.... Despite the divergences and imbalances in the current economy, Israelis and Palestinians both hope that in the case of an agreement, the United States, godfather of peace processes, will show itself to be generous."

ITALY: "America's Trump Card"
Ennio Caretto reported in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (7/25): "The last card that America will play is that of economic assistance. In Okinawa, President Clinton was able to obtain from G-8 partners a commitment to finance both Israel and Palestine in the case of an agreement. The White House is unofficially trying to obtain a similar commitment from
Congress.... But it is unlikely that the Republicans will want to cooperate: This is a card they would like to play later on, after the November elections, in the hope that their candidate, George Bush, will win."

"Focus On Jerusalem"
New York correspondent Anna Guaita wrote in centrist Il Messaggero (7/24): "Jerusalem appears like an insurmountable obstacle at this point. The fact remains, however, that over the last three days, the two sides have productively worked on other problems with Secretary Albright. Will they throw everything up if they don't reach an agreement on Jerusalem as well,
or will they agree to sign a 'small agreement' and to freeze the situation of the Holy City?"

HUNGARY: "Jerusalem And The Time Wasted"
Middle East expert Csilla Medgyesi wrote in an op-ed piece in influential Magyar Hirlap (7/22): "The taboo has been broken in Camp David for the first time, the idea of dividing the city has been first raised. But it is feared that it is a bit too late. There is no accord without Jerusalem."

THE NETHERLANDS: "Comeback Kid' At Camp David"
Centrist Haagsche Courant opined (7/22): "The prospects for a new accord between Israelis and Palestinians are still not favorable.... Now that the trenches have become so deep, Clinton is the only one--with the formidable might of America behind him--who can bring the parties together. Both negotiators trust him. And even if the high stakes of Camp David fail or fail
partially, there have at least been serious discussions; old taboos have been broken, and there has been reflection about solutions. That is a gain not to be discounted. In his last days as president, William Jefferson Clinton, has then at least made an enormous contribution to an idea that the world, seven years ago, before Oslo, thought impossible: that Jews and Arabs
could live in peace."

NORWAY: "Improvement In The Middle East"
Centrist Nationen opined (7/25): "Yet again come surprising signals from the diplomatic battlefield in the Middle East. After pessimism and dejection had increasingly gotten the upper hand, lately some bright spots may indicate that there is still hope of real progress in the emotional and important negotiations.... No one should doubt Jerusalem's decisive role in this
tug-of-war, but that doesn't mean that all the other difficult issues will automatically be resolved. On the other hand, there can hardly be doubt that it will be a long time before the chances for a peaceful general settlement are as good as they are in today's situation. A series of good and powerful forces are mobilized in an attempt to sweep away this old conflict. If it is
unsuccessful, there is a danger of new waves of violence that can lead to unforeseeable consequences and, in any case, a worsening atmosphere and tension for a long time to come. Seen in this perspective, it is perhaps not so surprising that today's new signals really contain new realities."

"The Thriller At Camp David"
Independent tabloid Dagbladet noted in its lead editorial (7/24): "Although Barak and Arafat only agree in some areas, that's better than travelling home empty-handed from Camp David.... It is therefore not necessarily a setback for peace if Barak and Arafat must have more time for themselves to solve these issues, although it is a setback for Bill Clinton, who would like to
crown his presidency with a final peace agreement.... It is the Palestinian people, both within and outside of Palestine's borders, who have the most to lose from a final agreement that does not fulfill there recognized demands. The Israelis know that regardless of what Barak comes home with from Camp David, they will have the chance to have their say through a
referendum. The Palestinians, both inside and outside Palestine, do not have this opportunity to have their say about their future. This is a sure recipe for unrest if Arafat does not manage to fulfill their expectations."

RUSSIA: "Barak, Arafat Can't Back Down"
Reformist business-oriented Kommersant ran a report by Leonid Gankin and Aleksandr Reutov (7/25): "According to a public opinion poll conducted by the Gallup Institute, about half the Israelis disapprove of the concessions Barak has made. So he can't back down anymore. Arafat has it even worse. His stance is virtually that of the Arab world. If he forsakes it, he will never
be forgiven."

"Condominium Rule Is Best Bet"
Vadim Balytnikov judged in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (7/25): "It seems that the only way to reach a settlement is to make East Jerusalem part of a state of Palestine and also to keep it inside Israel."

SLOVENIA: "Peace Processor"
Left-of-center Delo opined (7/24): "From Washington, the G-8 summit looked like a welcome break from the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations in Camp David.... On Monday, Clinton will check how much the gap between the [negotiators] has narrowed. The G-8 summit gave him some new ideas if he needs them at all.... This year, [the presidents] decided for a more secure virtual
world. The digital divide between the developed and the undeveloped is the real problem, not hunger, AIDS, and political dictatorships.... According to forecasts, something similar will happen in Camp David. Conflicting negotiating positions reflect a real historical conflict.... The Israelis will not renounce their radical interpretation of Zionism; the Palestinians will never give
up their national project of [establishing] an individual state. And they cannot part without an agreement. The...American proposal for a compromise should [suggest] that the gap [between the Israel's and Palestine's positions] is just an imaginary [virtual] disagreement."

SPAIN: "Intractable Jerusalem"
Conservative La Vanguardia of Barcelona commented (7/24): "The ideal would be to separate the question of political sovereignty from the religious issue.... Maybe faith can move mountains, but it is costly to move borders. It is true that the core of the religion of the Palestinian people can be assimilated into the fundamentalist or integrationist movements. In contrast, Israel seems sadly divided on the question.... Even if it confuses desire with reality, it remains encouraging that Jerusalem is at last on the table for negotiation."

SWITZERLAND: "Hope Given A Stay Of Execution At Camp David"
Leading Neue Zurcher Zeitung said (7/21): "When comparing the Sadat-Begin summit at Camp David 22 years ago with the current meeting at the same venue, it is probably fair to say that today's core issue of Palestinian-Israeli relations is more complex than the central dispute over the Sinai in 1978. All the more praiseworthy, then, that Barak and Arafat have chosen not to break off without a result but to carry on talking in Clinton's absence. Clearly it is better to stay on and at least leave in a better atmosphere, even if no real progress is made. And if the mere fact of talking about Jerusalem at the highest level for the first time in seven years sends out the signal that traditional intransigence is no longer enough, then certainly it can't hurt for the talks to go on a while longer."

TURKEY: "Jerusalem"
Hadi Uluengin wrote in mass-appeal Hurriyet (7/25): "Jewish fundamentalist groups are manipulating Israeli public opinion which makes Barak's stance at the Camp David talks very critical. If Barak does not present a reconciliatory position and does not step back from the position of 'Jerusalem, the indivisible capital city of Israel,' then there will be absolutely no chance to produce any results from the peace talks.... Barak should have at least as much courage as the Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin, who said the belief about Jerusalem as an undivided capital is nothing but a legend.... The hope for peace goes through the approach toward Jerusalem as it is the guardian for all three heavenly religions."

INDIA: "Back To The Table"
An editorial in the centrist Times of India averred (7/24): "Brinkmanship has always been a defining characteristic of the rocky Middle Eastern peace talks, but recent developments suggest the evidence of a degree of sobriety and realism.... Conditions for a possible solution are more favorable today than ever before, owing to a number of factors.... So far, the process has
stayed on course largely due to the extraordinary interest shown by Clinton.... But as he begins the last lap of his presidency, he will be busy with other unfinished business.... Most of all, what will drive the process forward is the resolve of the two leaders involved.... Though the U.S. role is crucial to the process, it is perhaps time for the region's leaders also to involve themselves more actively in it."

EAST ASIA
CHINA: "The United States Adjusts Its Middle East Policy"
Wang Chuanbao wrote in official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 7/24): "Current developments indicate that the United States is availing itself of the political changes in the Middle East countries to adjust its policy toward the region. By adopting a placating policy to forge closer ties with the Middle East nations, the United States is intending to strengthen
its dominance in the region. However, the media believe that whatever the United States does invariably represents its strategic intention to take a firm control over the region."

AFRICA
SOUTH AFRICA: "Talks Reaching Critical Phase"
The liberal, independent Natal Witness held (7/25): "Many believe it was Clinton--together with the late King Hussein of Jordan--who pulled the Middle East peace process back from the brink at the Wye River summit in 1998.... The president's motives are not entirely altruistic, of course. He is living out his final months as the world's most powerful politician and he wants to leave a legacy that will outshine the publicity over Monica Lewinsky and the shame of his impeachment at the hands of Congress. This Middle East summit may be his last chance to make history. But his dream may well remain just that.... It is a sad fact that religion exacerbates division and no spot on Earth is more loaded with religious significance than Jerusalem. The devotion of the faithful, ironically, might well be the factor which precludes the true peace of Jerusalem."

"Israel Will Have To Go Much Farther"
The liberal Sunday Independent held (7/23): "Little progress has been made at Camp David.... Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem and large parts of the West Bank are in defiance of international law as contained in a series of United Nations resolutions. Most of the world's nations refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel....
Against this backdrop...Barak's acceptance...of a U.S. proposal for shared rule of part of East Jerusalem is a small step forward. But Arafat...has very little to show for his compromises. His credit with Palestinians is running low. He must now either unilaterally declare the boundaries of a Palestinian state...or accept awkward compromises at Camp David. The harsh
reality of the current situation is that a Palestinian state would be little more than a symbolic entity, given the current security realities.... The Camp David initiative...has already had mild success in moving forward the Israeli hard-line position on Jerusalem. But Israel is going to have to go much further in accepting a solution that will enable the Palestinians to exercise
their national aspirations... The solution will have to lie in a plural democracy in which Jews and Arabs share historical Palestine... Clinton is pursuing American interests, which are to reduce Israel's high dependence on the U.S. by ensuring that it becomes a more integral part of the Middle East. Camp David might just achieve a few small steps in that direction."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA: "Indivisible"
The conservative National Post contended (7/22): "The nub of the matter is that, without being divided, Jerusalem cannot function as the capital of both a Jewish and a potential Palestinian state. On the other hand, it cannot be divided along seemingly intuitive lines...because the Old City, which includes the Western Wall, the Temple Mount and other Jewish holy sites, falls within the boundaries of East Jerusalem. Hence the plethora of attempts to square this tangled circle.... Is there a way out of this mess? Without a solution accepted by both sides so that the Palestinians unreservedly call a halt to their hostilities towards Israel, there can be no comprehensive peace.... Jerusalem is nowhere near as holy or important historically, culturally or religiously to Muslims as it is to the Jews; Israeli sovereignty already exists; Muslim access to
Islam's holy sites (and Christian access to Christian sites) has rightly been guaranteed for decades; and, lastly, there are several alternative cities available as a Palestinian capital, such as Hebron or Jericho. Since the 1964 PLO Covenant not once mentions Jerusalem, Mr. Arafat should not find it beyond his abilities to persuade his people that this is a good deal, and one
most unlikely to be repeated."

"Peace For Money"
Contributing foreign editor Eric Margolis observed in the conservative Ottawa Sun (7/24): "He who pays the piper should call the tune. Israel has received $100 billion in aid from the United States since 1948. Every year, U.S. taxpayers give Israel $5 billion in open and hidden aid.... Now should be the time for Washington to press Israel to accept a deal that would be good
for Jews, Arabs and U.S. Mideast interests. Instead, what we have is a flabby Bill Clinton who is thinking more about November elections, Democratic campaign financing and his next career move to Hollywood, than America's strategic position."There will be no real pressure on Israel to compromise. Every senior position in the U.S. State Department and National Security Council responsible for Mideast policy has been filled with strong supporters of Israel who are virtually part of Israel's political establishment. The three senior American diplomats at Camp David II have all been involved with the U.S. Israel lobby; two were Israeli residents. It would be similar to if the entire U.S. delegation at American-brokered talks on Northern Ireland
were militantly pro-Catholic republicans.... Israel is reportedly asking Washington for $15-$27 billion to relocate military facilities from the occupied territories, and another $30-$40 billion to make its armed forces as technologically advanced as those of the United States, including full integration into U.S. space and intelligence systems.... The United States and Europe provide Palestine's entire $360 million annual budget. Yasser Arafat now seeks $40 billion compensation--not from Israel, but the United States!... In short, American taxpayers are being asked to again massively bribe their squabbling clients into pretending to cooperate. Camp David II could end up costing $100 billion--just for starters. Clever Mideasterners certainly
know how to shake down Uncle Sam in an election year."

"Peacemakers Pulling Teeth"
The right-of-center Halifax Herald (7/22) wrote: "The major sticking point at Camp David seems to be the fate of the City of David, specifically East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want to turn into the capital of their independent state and over which the Israelis stubbornly refuse to relinquish sovereignty.... But this issue now goes beyond who is right or wrong.

What ultimately matters is what the three sides, including the United States, can sell to their respective constituencies. Mr. Barak is under pressure from a fractious coalition.... Even if Mr. Barak succeeds in securing a deal with Mr. Arafat, how will it fly?... Mr. Arafat, for his part, must walk away with a deal that doesn't look like a sellout or he will be forced to unilaterally declare Palestinian independence by mid-September. And if Mr. Clinton pledges gobs of money to grease the wheels of an eventual peace deal--let's say $15 billion in economic and military aid and to help cover the cost of Palestinian resettlement--can he even get it through a partisan Congress in an election year? After all the haggling over periods, commas, street maps, borders
and timetables, any Camp David accord might end up only being acceptable to the three people who negotiated it. It will either be one ugly duckling or dead on arrival."

ARGENTINA: "Creative Show At Camp David"
International columnist Pablo Rodriguez judged in leftist Pagina 12 (7/25): "The Camp David summit is getting very tough and the key controversy continues to be Jerusalem.... In order to break this 'deadlock,' the United States yesterday made a non-official proposal to divide the city. Even two of Barak's ministers admitted this possibility. One of them, the minister of justice, Yossi Beilin, said that there is a need for 'creative commitments' and above all, 'a lot of imagination'. In Israel and in the Arab world they want nothing to do with creativity or imagination. Israel's right-wing keeps pressuring Barak to avoid making concessions. And the Arab countries are sending Arafat a clear message: East Jerusalem is not negotiable."

"Clinton Returned To Save The Peace Summit"
Ana Baron, Washington-based correspondent for leading Clarin, commented (7/24): "President Bill Clinton returned yesterday from the summit of the industrialized countries in Japan to meet with Barak and Arafat at the negotiation table.... Last Thursday, the Pentagon announced that Washington had approved the sale of U.S. military equipment to Egypt for the amount of $982 million. Also, the Pentagon approved the sale of arms to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for $150 million and $475 million respectively. Although it is possible that these sales of military equipment must have been approved anyway, the fact that they were green-lighted during the Camp David negotiations is meaningful. It indicates what countries are the allies in the
region in the case of the outbreak (of a military conflict). Both Israelis and Palestinians fear that if Barak and Arafat do not reach an agreement a new war may be unleashed."

BRAZIL: "Jerusalem On The Table"
An editorial in liberal Folha de S. Paulo said (7/22): "Regardless of the outcome of the Camp David summit between Israelis and Palestinians, another big step was taken with the fact that high level leaders from both sides sat at the negotiation table to discuss peace in its concrete aspects, including the apparently insoluble problems, such as the status of Jerusalem. Other
issues discussed at the summit...are objectively even more difficult than Jerusalem's status, but while profound psychological aspects are not involved, it is easier to find a formula for consensus on them. The near failure of the summit reveals the degree of tension. And the fact that the meeting was unexpectedly prolonged shows that the leaders are aware that a setback now
might ruin what was achieved since the beginning of the peace talks. One has gone too far to step back, and the price of defeat now is to go back to a war without winners."

## Advertise with Us About Us GlobalSecurity.org In the News Internships Site Map Privacy Copyright © 2000-2005
GlobalSecurity.org All rights reserved.Site maintained by: John Pike