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,
todramatize 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.
