With Two Engineers at the Throttle Is "Peace Train" Stopping or Starting?

by Rachelle Marshall

Starting with ancient Athens, where political equality and slavery existed side by side, democracies have never been totally free of incongruities. Today in many countries where governments are chosen through popular elections, political dissidents and minority groups are cruelly persecuted. Even in democracies with admirable human rights records, the rich are far more "equal" than the poor when it comes to political power. But rarely has the meaning of democracy been stretched so thin as in Israel, which claims to be "the only democracy in the Middle East" while at the same time denying two million Palestinians their most basic human rights. (A bill currently before the Knesset that permits interrogators to use physical force against Palestinian suspects would, if passed, make the Jewish state the only country in the world to legalize torture.)

The double standard that enables the Israelis, with full U.S. support, to resist the Palestinians' efforts to achieve democratic self-government is reflected in the current crisis over amending the Palestine National Covenant. Just before Palestinian voters went to the polls on Jan. 20 to elect a president and 88-member legislative council, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres issued an ultimatum to Yasser Arafat: unless he carries through on his promise to repeal sections of the Covenant that deny Israel's right to exist, the peace process will grind to a halt.

To underscore his threat, Peres asked Vice President Al Gore and Secretary of State Warren Christopher to deliver the message to Arafat. Three days after the Palestinian elections, Peres repeated his warning in a speech to the Knesset. If the PLO Charter is not repealed, he said, "the train will stop." There would be no third round of negotiations on the future status of Jerusalem, the rights of Palestinian refugees, the control of water supplies in the West Bank and Gaza, and other crucial issues.

During the same week, a congressional aide told a reporter for the Jewish Telegraph Agency that also at stake was $500 million in U.S. funds promised to the Palestinians. "This Congress will not approve aid to the PLO if the Covenant is not changed," the aide said. "It's as simple as that." What Israeli and U.S. leaders fail to perceive is that the Palestinians, having begun their passage toward self-rule, will no longer let Israel dictate what they must do.

The Palestine National Covenant, or Charter, was adopted in 1964 and revised in 1968 as a statement of aims of the newly organized Palestine Liberation Organization and the larger umbrella group, the Palestine National Council (PNC). In adopting the Covenant, the Palestinians asserted their national identity and declared their independence from the Arab countries whose support for the Palestinian cause had been notoriously ineffective. The Palestinian national identity included all Jews living in Palestine before "the Zionist invasion."

In the provisions that Israel wants removed, the Charter asserts that Zionism is "a political movement...racist and fanatic in its nature; aggressive, expansionist and colonial in its aims; and fascist in its methods." The partition of 1947, and the state of Israel itself, are "entirely illegal," and the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (authorizing a Jewish homeland in Palestine) is "null and void." Especially offensive to Israelis is Section 9, which declares that "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine."

Amending the Covenant

Israeli leaders point out that in the agreement signed in Washington last September, Arafat pledged that within two months after the Palestinian elections the Covenant would be amended to remove sections calling for the destruction of Israel. If Arafat had not made such a promise, the Israelis say, there would have been no agreement. Arafat, on the other hand, insists that in agreeing to recognize Israel and accept U.N. Resolution 242, the PNC had de facto and de jure revoked the offending passages. In a letter to the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1993 he wrote, "the articles of the Palestine Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist are inoperative and no longer valid." Arafat recently reminded reporters that he had in effect annulled the Charter in 1988 when he told the U.N. General Assembly that "its time has passed."

Israel's insistence on a formal amendment process confronts Arafat with a serious dilemma. The Covenant specifies that amendments require a favorable vote by two-thirds of the membership of the Palestine National Council at a special session convened for that purpose. The changes can only be made by the PNC, which represents diaspora Palestinians as well as those in the West Bank and Gaza, and not by the newly elected legislative council. Members of the new council will be added to the 488-member PNC, but there is a fair possibility that two-thirds of the combined membership will refuse to repeal the Covenant unless Israel agrees to certain conditions in return. Even though 51 of the council members are affiliated with Fatah, there are enough independents to insure that the new legislative body will not be a rubber stamp for Arafat, much as Israel might like it to be. On the contrary, as Jerusalem attorney Jonathan Kuttab recently predicted, "Israel is going to learn quickly that there is a distinction."

Israeli officials and their U.S. counterparts continue to treat Arafat as if he is still the sole decision maker for the Palestinian people. But there is no way he can unilaterally ram through changes to the Covenant without angering Palestinians who assumed that in voting for a legislative council last January, they were taking the first step toward building a truly democratic state. Strong-arm tactics on Arafat's part might also stiffen the resistance of a significant number of PNC and legislative council members who object to erasing hostile references to Israel, and thereby accepting Israel's legitimacy as a state, before Israel recognizes the Palestinians' similar right.

One of the protesters is Dr. Haidar Abdel-Shafi, who received the greatest number of votes in the January elections. He insists that Israel must acknowledge the Palestinians' right to an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. "If Israel refuses to do that," he said, "I will reject the idea of amending the Palestinian Covenant." Hanan Ashrawi, like Dr. Abdel-Shafi a former peace negotiator for the PLO, agrees that the Charter must not be amended without an Israeli commitment to Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem. Peres firmly dismisses the possibility that Palestinian self-rule areas will eventually become a state. He assured Israelis over Israeli Army Radio in late January that "we created the Oslo process...and this process has its limits." Health Minister Ephraim Sneh later scoffed, "What kind of Palestinian state are they talking about? A state where we control 70 percent of the territory?"

Apart from the issue of statehood, Palestinian leaders are raising other concerns as well in connection with amending the Covenant. Acting head of the PNC Salim Zanoun has declared that the PNC should not even convene until all its members are given full residency rights in the Palestinian territories, self-rule is extended throughout the West Bank and Gaza, and all Palestinian prisoners are released. The actual head of the PNC, Hamid Sayegh, refuses to return for a vote on the Covenant until he is allowed to live in his birthplace, Jerusalem.

Peres has charged that if Arafat fails to repeal the Covenant he will be violating a pledge written into the Oslo accords. But Israel has consistently violated the accords in both letter and spirit.

Chipping Away at Self-Rule

Israel continues to chip away at the self-rule for Palestinian cities promised by Oslo after the redeployment of Israeli troops. Six weeks after the army withdrew from Bethlehem, Israeli security forces began building a concrete barrier outside Rachel's Tomb in the middle of the main street, effectively clogging traffic in and out of the city. The normally conciliatory Mayor Elias Freij complained bitterly that "This will, if it continues, kill the city." Residents of other West Bank cities face similar problems as they find themselves penned behind fences or isolated by thruways designed to protect Israeli settlers.

Although Oslo requires that the status of Jerusalem remain unchanged until the third round of negotiations in May 1996 the government has taken over large areas for new highways and Jewish housing while clamping a tight lid on Palestinian construction. Both sides have held unofficial talks on the city's future, but Peres repeatedly declares that Jerusalem's status is not negotiable and that it will remain forever the undivided capital of Israel. Despite his vow, as soon as the government scheduled the next elections for May 29, the Likud party kicked off its campaign with thousands of billboards and posters proclaiming, "Peres will split Jerusalem!"

Meanwhile, in violation of the spirit of Oslo Israel has made it almost impossible for most Palestinians to enter the city. Even on the first day of Ramadan, when Muslims traditionally come to pray at Al Aqsa Mosque, Israel barred all Gazans and allowed in only West Bank Palestinians over 30. Shortly afterward the government closed off the West Bank and Gaza entirely for eleven days, to prevent a suspected terrorist attack. On Feb. 25, two days after the border was reopened, bomb explosions in Jerusalem and Ashkelon killed 27 people and wounded 77. Hamas took credit for the horrifying act, claiming it was in retaliation for the murder of Islamic militant Yahya Ayyash and several other Hamas members by Israeli security forces and offering a cease-fire if Israel "ended its terror activities against Hamas." The killing of Ayyash ended a six-month period of calm. Sayid Abu Musamih, a Hamas official, said the political wing of the organization had been holding talks with the Palestinian Authority on curbing violence and that "Things were going well until Israel broke them off with the assassination of Ayyash."

The reaction to the bombing in Israel and Washington makes it almost certain that the devastating cycle of violence and reprisal will continue. Although the suspect was believed to be from Hebron, which is under Israeli control, Israeli and U.S. officials blamed Arafat's security forces and demanded he do more to combat terrorism. Otherwise, Peres warned, "the government response will be harsh and uncompromising." The message was clear: the U.S. and Israel are insisting that Palestinian police go after suspected militants with no respect for the legal safeguards a democratic society requires and that their own citizens rely on.

In recent months, when Palestinian authorities held midnight trials in secret military courts, jailed Hamas leaders without charges, or tortured and killed suspected extremists, the PLO leader received nothing but praise from Washington and Jerusalem. There has been notable silence in both capitals toward complaints by Palestinian and Israeli human rights activists that hundreds of journalists have been jailed and that at least six prisoners have died in Palestinian custody.

But Palestinians are increasingly resentful of such tactics, and unwilling to see their rights violated for the sake of Israel's security. Just before the Jan. 20 election, the head of the Palestinian Human Rights Commission, Eyad Sarraj, told an interviewer that because of the Palestinians' close contact with Israel over the years, "We saw the double standard they had, democracy in Israel but not for us. We hoped our leaders would run the Authority in a democratic way but this hasn't happened." When Hanan Ashrawi was running for election to the council, like many of the other candidates she spoke of building an open and pluralistic society that respected individual freedom. "We need equal application of the law, without discrimination," she said. "We need to create a system of accountability."

A poll of Palestinians taken after the election by the Center for Palestine Research showed that although voters had overwhelmingly favored Arafat they wanted his power held in check by a strong legislature. Two-thirds of those questioned believed that human rights and freedom of speech and press should take precedence over "national security."

The combined membership of the PNC and the Palestinian Legislative Council is scheduled to meet in April, when they will have to weigh Israel's threat to derail peace negotiations if the Covenant is not amended, against widespread opinion that Israel must make concessions in return. But there may be a way out of this dilemma. A committee composed of legal experts and members of the new council and the PNC is drawing up a draft Constitution that will serve as basic Palestinian law until the final status of the West Bank and Gaza is determined in three years. If the draft is approved by the council as a whole, the new constitution will replace the Covenant as the Palestinians' official statement of identity and purpose. At this point most Palestinians would undoubtedly prefer to look to the future instead of nurturing old grievances. A constitution ratified by their elected representatives could provide the permanent foundation of a future democratic state, establishing as fundamental law the protection of free speech and other individual human rights. With such a document in hand, the Palestinian people might well regard the Covenant as obsolete, a historic relic now superseded by the new Constitution. There is no better way Israel could show support for Palestinian democracy than by accepting a new Palestinian Constitution, free of threats to Israel's existence, as de facto repeal of the Covenant.

If the Palestine Legislative Council approves a constitution based on a draft completed in late 1995 by the head of the PNC Legal Committee, Dr. Anis Al-Qasem, Palestinians will live under fundamental laws that are as enlightened as any in the world. Article 1 specifies that "The Palestinian people are the source of all authority", a notable departure from the constitutions of other Arab countries where Islamic law is the supreme authority. Article 2 declares that "The government of Palestine shall be based on parliamentary democracy and pluralism, with consideration by the majority for the rights and interests of the minority and respect by the minority of the decisions of the majority." Article 5 names Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine but provides that the rights of all three major religions will be respected.

Chapter 2 spells out in eloquent detail the future state's commitment to the equality of men and women and the protection of freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of expression and religion. Torture and other inhumane forms of punishment are prohibited and every citizen has the right to a fair trial. The constitution specifically requires Palestinian officials to adhere to all international covenants on human rights. If the Palestine Legislative Council accepts these provisions as part of basic Palestinian law, there will be a certain irony to their accomplishment. A written constitution that protects the religious and political freedom of all citizens is something the Israelis have been unable to agree on in all the years of their country's existence.

According to historians, American democracy did not begin in 1787 after the colonies had won their independence, but in 1776 when the rebellious colonists began drafting the first republican constitutions the world had ever known. Like those early Americans, the Palestinians do not yet have a state of their own, but there is no doubt they have embarked on an irreversible journey. Peres may find that despite his threats the train can no longer be stopped.

Old City to international control,and then returning the other portions of East Jerusalem and the West Bank they have unilaterally "annexed" from outside the "Green Line" to the Palestinians.

The questions of Palestinian refugees and Jewish settlers are the most emotional ones, but in some ways they are the most easily resolved. Palestinians who wish to return to homes within Israel's borders that were taken from them in 1948 must be allowed to return to live as Israelis, or be offered compensation for their lost homes and lands that will allow them to live with dignity elsewhere. The Jewish settlers who live in the West Bank and Gaza must compensate the original owners of the lands they occupy and then agree to live in Palestine as Palestinians, or return to Israel.

The water problem may be the most complicated of all, since both Palestinians and Israelis are to a large extent dependent upon waters that rise in Syria and must be shared with Jordan. Israelis also depend upon water from aquifers that flow under the West Bank. Here international aid will be needed to increase, through desalination projects, the total supply of water available.

At present the Israelis waste water on a colossal scale, primarily on uneconomical agricultural projects whose original purpose was to provide employment for Jews and thereby remold the Jewish people into agrarian laborers. Now, with most of the labor provided by Palestinians or workers imported from as far away as Romania and Thailand, the raison d'étre for the projects has vanished. Whatever agreements are reached must ensure that gross inequities between per capita availability of water to Palestinians and to Israelis are ended.

Finally, "separation" must extend to the economic arena. At present the Palestinians are largely prohibited from selling their agricultural and other products in Israel, and from importing manufactured goods from anywhere but Israel. The system seems designed to provide cheap Palestinian labor for the Israelis, and to keep the Palestinians from developing an entrepreneurial economy of their own.

Any lasting settlement to which Yasser Arafat can agree must provide direct access for Palestinian goods to European, Middle Eastern and other markets. Palestine must have its own ports and airports, and direct and unhindered border crossings into Egypt and Jordan. Duty-free transit of people and goods between the Gazan and West Bank components of the Palestinian state must also be permitted.

None of these problems will be solved permanently by a Labor-dominated government that is not prepared to abandon Israel's practice of imposing edicts from a position of strength on the Palestinians, rather than negotiating with them from a position of equality.

It appears that, if he is re-elected, Shimon Peres is prepared to enter into serious negotiations with the Palestinians in order to further his dream of an Israel sharing in petroleum-generated Middle East regional prosperity. What will be difficult for him to do is to stop cutting the corners in his negotiations.

For example, Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo agreements on the understanding that they are based upon U.N. Security Council Resolution 242's stipulation that Israel will withdraw from lands occupied in the 1967 war in return for Arab acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized borders.

Arafat complied with the Israeli demand for recognition of its right to exist in 1988, and his recent election victory legitimizes his signature on any treaty. But if Israel retains all of the West Bank and Gaza land it has expropriated for Jewish settlements, that will leave less than 10 percent of the land of Palestine for a Palestinian state instead of the 22 percent implied in Resolution 242. Arafat cannot accept this and retain his legitimacy.

A final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would open the way to recognition of Israel by the Arab and Islamic worlds. But whether the moment is seized depends first upon Israeli voters and the leader they choose. Perhaps there is little more that President Clinton can do to influence Israel's choice in May. There is much that an American president can do after Israel's election, however, to influence how Israel's prime minister approaches the three years of final-stage negotiations with the Palestinians.

Hopefully, President Clinton was listening when Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa replied to rejectionist Arab criticism of Egypt for hosting a meeting designed primarily to boost the re-election prospects of Israel's incumbent prime minister.

"We want to close the file on the Arab-Israeli conflict," Moussa said on March 12, the day before the summit. "We are not in a game to get an Israeli peace. It should be balanced. It should be an Arab-Israeli peace. Otherwise...it would not be durable."

What American presidents do in the next three years may, in fact, determine whether a Jewish state at peace with its Arab neighbors exists 50 years from now or whether, like the Crusader Kingdom, its final passage is marked only by a few picturesque ruins and some blood-soaked pages in the Middle East's ever-astonishing 5,000 years of recorded history.