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