America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace
The New York Times
April 21, 2002
By JIMMY CARTER
ATLANTA - In January 1996, with
full support from Israel and
responding to the invitation of the
Palestinian Liberation Organization,
the Carter Center helped to monitor a
democratic election in the West Bank
and Gaza, which was well organized,
open and fair. In that election, 88
members were elected to the
Palestinian National Authority, with Yasir Arafat as president. Legally and
practically, the Palestinian people were encouraged to form their own government,
with the expectation that they would soon have full sovereignty as a state.
When the election was over, I made a strong effort to persuade the leaders of
Hamas to accept the election results, with Mr. Arafat as their leader. I relayed a
message offering them full participation in the process of developing a permanent
constitutional framework for the new political entity, but they refused to accept
this proposal. Despite this rejection, it was a time of peace and hope, and there was
no threat of violence or even peaceful demonstrations. The legal status of the
Palestinian people has not changed since then, but their plight has grown
desperate.
Ariel Sharon is a strong and forceful man and has never equivocated in his public
declarations nor deviated from his ultimate purpose. His rejection of all peace
agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands, his invasion of
Lebanon, his provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the destruction of villages and
homes, the arrests of thousands of Palestinians and his open defiance of President
George W. Bush's demand that he comply with international law have all been
orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as
widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a
cohesive political existence.
There is adequate blame on the other side. Even when he
was free and enjoying the full trappings of political power,
Yasir Arafat never exerted control over Hamas and other
radical Palestinians who reject the concept of a peaceful
Israeli existence and adopt any means to accomplish their
goal. Mr. Arafat's all-too-rare denunciations of violence
have been spasmodic, often expressed only in English and
likely insincere. He may well see the suicide attacks as
one of the few ways to retaliate against his tormentors, to
dramatize the suffering of his people, or as a means for
him, vicariously, to be a martyr.
Tragically, the policies of Mr. Sharon have greatly strengthened these criminal
elements, enhanced their popular support, and encouraged misguided young men
and women to sacrifice their own lives in attacking innocent Israeli citizens. The
abhorrent suicide bombings are also counterproductive in that they discredit the
Palestinian cause, help perpetuate the military occupation and destruction of
villages, and obstruct efforts toward peace and justice.
The situation is not hopeless. There is an ultimate avenue to peace in the
implementation of United Nations resolutions, including Resolution 242, expressed
most recently in the highly publicized proposal of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince
Abdullah. The basic premises of these resolutions are withdrawal of Israelis from
Palestinian lands in exchange for full acceptance of Israel and Israel's right to live
in peace. This is a reasonable solution for many Israelis, having been accepted in
1978 by Prime Minister Menachem Begin and ratified by the Israeli Knesset.
Egypt, offering the greatest threat to Israel, responded by establishing full
diplomatic relations and honoring Israeli rights, including unimpeded use of the
Suez canal. This set a pattern for what can and must be done by all other Arab
nations. Through constructive negotiations, both sides can consider some
modifications of the 1967 boundary lines.
East Jerusalem can be jointly administered with unimpeded access to holy places,
and the right of return can be addressed by permitting a limited number of
displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland with fair compensation to
others. It will be a good investment for the international community to pay this
cost.
With the ready and potentially unanimous backing of the international
community, the United States government can bring about such a solution to the
existing imbroglio. Demands on both sides should be so patently fair and balanced
that at least a majority of citizens in the affected area will respond with approval,
and an international force can monitor compliance with agreed peace terms, as was
approved for the Sinai region in 1979 following Israel's withdrawal from Egyptian
territory.
There are two existing factors that offer success to United States persuasion. One is
the legal requirement that American weapons are to be used by Israel only for
defensive purposes, a premise certainly being violated in the recent destruction of
Jenin and other villages. Richard Nixon imposed this requirement to stop Ariel
Sharon and Israel's military advance into Egypt in the 1973 war, and I used the
same demand to deter Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1979. (A full invasion was
launched by Ariel Sharon after I left office). The other persuasive factor is
approximately $10 million daily in American aid to Israel. President George Bush
Sr. threatened this assistance in 1992 to prevent the building of Israeli settlements
between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on the
Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of the actions toward peace
would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of Israel. They all involve
lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians, as recognized by international
law.
The existing situation is tragic and likely to get worse. Normal diplomatic efforts
have failed. It is time for the United States, as the sole recognized intermediary, to
consider more forceful action for peace. The rest of the world will welcome this
leadership.
Jimmy Carter, the former president, is chairman of the Carter Center, which works
worldwide to advance peace and human health.
nytimes.com |
