Last week, the Palestinian Central Council (PCC), the quasi-legislative body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), announced plans to declare a Palestinian state at some point in the coming year. The announcement coincided with today's beginning of a Clinton-convened Camp David summit involving PLO chairman Yassir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. That these events occurred simultaneously is revealing; they clearly demonstrate that peace is a priority and that any meaningful discussion of lasting peace in and around Israel must include a serious consideration of Palestinian statehood.
As I see it, any resolution of the deep conflict that currently plagues the region must take into account several elements. First and foremost, Palestinian statehood must be assumed as a goal, rather than proposed as a concession. This entails a serious and lasting commitment from both sides. On the Israeli side, Mr. Barak must be able to effectively prove to his constituents and to the members of his tenuously-bound coalition government that Israel can peacefully coexist with an internationally recognized Palestine. It is up to Mr. Barak to ensure that relations between the two governments set a positive tone from the outset.
On the Palestinian side, statehood is an enormous responsibility. The transition from a terrorist organization to a legitimately recognized government seems like a far stretch, but Mr. Arafat seems prepared to do it. His must focus primarily on constituting a legitimate government that will be respected by the international community. Perhaps the best example for him to follow is, believe it or not, Israel. Israel was created only 50 years ago and is already a military, economic and diplomatic force in the world. Any declaration of statehood by Mr. Arafat and the PLO needs to include a serious pledge to protect human rights, prevent and eliminate corruption and work towards economic self-sufficiency and modernization.
The second vital element that must be included in a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a covenant to maintain positive communication at any cost. A declaration of statehood is not an end in and of itself; it is a means to achieving lasting peace. President Clinton needs to stress the importance of consistent and continuous negotiation between Israel and Palestine, as well as other nations in the region. He can promise, on the part of the American government and its people, that American aid in negotiating will always be available. The area for which this will likely be most important is the extremely sensitive Jerusalem debate. Early reports indicate that a declaration of Palestinian statehood will include a declaration of Jerusalem as that country's capital; this would be a costly diplomatic error. So many people lay claim to all or parts of Jerusalem that it is unlikely that the controversy will be resolved before Palestinian statehood is declared. Though I do believe that, at this point, Jerusalem is far too precious for Israel to give up in part or full, I advocate serious discussion until an agreement can be reached that most or all parties can live with; that may take years, but what is fundamental is that both parties agree to keep the lines of communication open regardless of the depth of disagreement.
The Jerusalem conflict illustrates one part of the third essential element of lasting peace with Palestinian statehood; boundaries need to be delineated such that a Palestinian state can function and such that Israel does not compromise its security or well-being. The bizarre geographic nature of what would be the Palestinian state is perplexing if not problematic. Prime Minister Barak has already addressed this problem publicly and plans to incorporate it into this week's talks. Any territorial continuity needs to be established without threatening Israeli security or depleting its precious natural resources (especially water supply). Mr. Arafat must present reasonable demands and Mr. Barak will inevitably have to concede some land. Still, both must realize that the end goal of peace in the region far outweighs the potential costs.
The fourth and final vital element that must underpin any plans of peace and Palestinian statehood is a commitment to eradicating terrorism. For the PLO, this is an especially onerous burden. Mr. Arafat once coordinated a terrorist effort against Israel and it will fall almost entirely on him to prevent such efforts. Fundamentalist groups like Hamas have already pledged to continue to employ terrorist tactics, which presents an obvious problem for Mr. Arafat. Further complicating the situation is the willingness of some middle eastern governments to support terrorism, with Lebanon, Afghanistan and Syria at the head of that list. Despite all that, Mr. Arafat can and should work together with Israeli security forces trained in terrorism prevention so that steps can be taken toward uprooting terrorism and promoting peace.
This is an enormously important time in the Middle East. There are several new leaders in the area and, it seems, a feasible combination of governments to work towards lasting peace. What Mr. Arafat has been fighting for decades seems poised to occur. He, Mr. Barak et.al. have a responsibility to the international community to create self-perpetuating peace on suitable, respectable terms.
