One such glimmer came when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert became the first Israeli leader to visit a Palestinian city since the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000.
On Monday, August 6 he met in Jericho with Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian National Authority. Symbolically, this city was one of the first to be handed over to the Palestinians by the Israelis at the dawn of the peace process, in 1994. Jericho evokes many other associations - not only with the idyllic period in Palestinian-Israeli relations but also with its abrupt ending in 2000.
Be that as it may, this is the first time in seven years that Israel is willing to discuss with the Palestinians the prospects for a final settlement and the formation of a Palestinian state. In the last few years, both sides have mostly talked about stability, humanitarian and economic cooperation and pressing security issues rather than the resumption of peace talks.
On August 6, the two leaders discussed preparations for a Middle Eastern forum to be held next fall on the initiative of the U.S. president. Subsequent meetings will be devoted to the same subject. George W. Bush has declared his readiness to put an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict before he leaves office, that is, in the next 17 months.
What will the sides bring to the proposed conference? The media report that Israel is hoping to negotiate with the Palestinians on a package of basic principles for a bilateral settlement without going into detail. It is still unclear what these basic principles will be, except for an agreement on the formation of a Palestinian state in the near future.
In 1993, the Palestinians and the Israelis signed a Declaration of Principles. It covered the organization of an interim Palestinian self-government, the territories that would be handed over to the new authority, the parameters of Palestinian-Israeli cooperation and the redeployment of Israeli troops. The sides also pledged to start talks on the final status of the Palestinian territories, during which they were supposed to make decisions on the most urgent issues, such as the future of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and Jewish settlements, and the delimitation of a permanent border between Israel and Palestine.
According to the declaration, the sides were supposed to accomplish these tasks in five years, but instead it took them 13. They discussed a final settlement of the conflict and all disputable issues at the summit in Camp David in 2000, attended by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak with U.S. President Bill Clinton as a mediator. The talks ended in failure because the compromise proposals did not receive public support from either side. This setback eventually led to the start of the Intifada, which put an end to the peace process.
Now the Israelis and the Palestinians are again returning to the Declaration of Principles and again announcing their readiness to discuss burning issues, this time at the Middle East forum in the fall. But the entire history of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations shows that this is unrealistic. The deadlock in which Arafat, Barak and Clinton found themselves in 2000 may repeat itself in 2007.
Clearly, the situation in the region is different now, as are Arab attitudes towards Israel; the situation in the Palestinian territories has also changed (mostly for the worse). But the principles on which the Palestinians hope to build their state have remained the same: the establishment of their capital in East Jerusalem, Israeli recognition of the Palestinian refugees' right of return, and the return to Palestine of all or most of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. The recent Arab peace initiative rests on these principles, and the Palestinians will support them at the talks.
Following the Olmert-Abbas meeting, chief Palestinian negotiator Saib Arikat said that the Palestinians did not need any new initiatives besides the Arab one. All they want is to agree on a temporary schedule for the formation of an independent Palestinian state at the proposed international conference on the Middle East. It follows that the principles of that state's formation are not a subject for discussion.
But this does not rule out a compromise, though any agreement is bound to be very painful both for the Palestinians and the Israelis. The two sides should make an effort to prepare their citizens for such a compromise rather than simply declare it a fait accompli. Otherwise, all declarations and agreements will remain on paper. Neither Abbas nor Olmert has enough popular support to make major concessions right away, which a realistic final settlement requires.
The current situation is increasingly reminiscent of the events of 2000, when Clinton pressured both sides to reach an agreement while he was still in office. It is a good thing that the sides have come back to where they were seven years ago, when the peace process was still going on, but they should not forget that the failure of the talks led to a new Intifada. Will history repeat itself?
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
