ME peace and a zebra crossing a zebra-crossing

It was 1969. Thirty-six years ago. I was a Pakistani diplomat, practising my Arabic with an elderly Druze politician, in a restaurant in Beirut, overlooking the Mediterranean. We were talking about Lebanon, importance of Syria within the Levant and the prospect of finding peace in the Middle-East. I was also seeking his views about the future of Palestine and Israel. Walid Hitti, that was his name, claimed that finding peace in the Middle East was like pursuing a mirage. He also laughed and commented that "it is like a zebra crossing a zebra-crossing (near a traffic intersection), -- now you see it, now you don't."

Recent events appear to be proving him right once again.

They have unfolded at a quick pace over the last few weeks. The peace process has moved like the proverbial snail climbing a greased pole ascending two feet the first minute, to slip down one foot the next.

The diplomatic flurry, initiated on February 6, 2005 (through the meeting between the Israeli Prime Minister and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas), ushered in a de facto truce between the two parties. This agreement was subsequently followed by Israeli gestures meant to build confidence release of more than 500 Palestinian prisoners and a suspension of Israeli army raids and targeted assassinations. This restored some calm to the scene.

Hamas and other factions, at the forefront of the four-year old uprising, known as the Intifada, also expressed limited agreement and satisfaction with the agreement and promised to restrain themselves from provocative action. They underlined that they still wanted a larger number of prisoner releases and more sweeping Israeli pullback from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. However, they were willing to wait.

This process of gradual understanding within the Middle East was however greatly affected by the sudden assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister and another suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Both these incidents have caused a slide.

Killing of Lebanese political leaders has not been a new phenomenon. President elect Bashir Gemayel was assassinated in 1982 Prime Minister Rashid Karami, who held office sixteen times, was killed in 1987. President Reni Moawad died in a bomb explosion in November 1989. Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt, former Interior Minister, was killed in 1978. However, none of these killings created the kind of outrage that has followed Hariri's death. This was partially because Hariri was held in high esteem by Arab leaders not only for his moderate views but also for his contribution towards the reconstruction of war-ravaged Lebanon.

There has been no compelling evidence that Syria was involved in this latest outrage in Lebanon. However, subsequent days witnessed public demonstrations and anti-Syrian slogans. This eventually led to the downfall of the pro-Syrian Administration in Beirut. This sentiment was seized upon by hawks in the US Administration and they increased their pressure on Syria not only to evacuate its troops from Lebanon but also to stop giving sanctuary and assistance to those opposing the current Iraqi government.

Israel, as expected also joined in the chorus.

Further instability was created with the unfortunate suicide bombing in Tel Aviv on 25 February. This led to Israel launching a raid into West Bank on the next day. The truce had lasted only for a few weeks.

The downside of the situation was reflected in Israel indicating that their leadership had ordered the resumption of military operations against Palestinian militant groups and put on hold the peace process, recently initiated.

Many in the Palestinian Authority believe that efforts are underway to thwart the chances of peace. No clear claims are being made as to who might be responsible for this. There are analysts based in Europe and the US who have suggested Syrian and Iranian links. On the other hand, there are also some Palestinian and Arab analysts who believe that continuity in the cycle of violence is being engineered by extreme rightist elements within Israel, who are against a process where thousands of illegal Jewish settlers would have to leave occupied territory.

The month of March will be very important for Palestine and Israel. We have just had the Special Conference on Palestinian nation-building in London on 1st March. It was attended by representatives from the Quartet and Foreign Ministers from the Arab world and Europe. It also included representatives from the World Bank and the IMF. Israel stayed away. This unfortunately underlined that their concern for immediate security was more important than long term peace.

Nevertheless, the presence of US Secretary of State introduced some degree of optimism. This encouraged participants to believe that the US and the European officials were trying seriously to cool down existing tensions and revive the peace drive as a key test of transatlantic cooperation.

Leaders from both sides of the Atlantic reiterated their commitment to halt bloodshed and restore strategic stability in the Middle East. Pledges were made once again to provide financial assistance so that the peace process could be given a fresh lease of life. This was demonstration of the right kind of political will.

The Palestinian delegation appears to have conveyed a simple message. They reiterated that the London Conference on Palestinian reforms 'must lead to a return to the road-map and also eventually to an international conference to re-launch final status negotiations for the establishment of the Palestinian State and credible peace.' Their leader Mahmoud Abbas pointed out that 'peace is possible now and we are ready to negotiate with Israel to reach a true and lasting peace based on justice and international legitimacy.' In this context, it was also highlighted by many participants that it would be 'irresponsible' of all concerned if this chance was allowed to slip away.

It has been reported that this meeting also discussed various facets related to the organisational aspects pertaining to Palestinian statehood and the evolving of its Institutions. There was however one snag differences over how the US intends to coordinate the peace-drive. The Europeans feel that they have been given the role of being fund-raisers but have been left out of the decision making process. This needs to be addressed sooner than later, if the Quartet efforts are to be seen as successful. The role of the United Nations has also not been properly clarified. It is being seen as a facilitator rather than a central player.

There are significant areas that still need to be sorted out. They are that much more important given the fact that dialogue is expected to start in Cairo between Palestinian officials and militant leaders very soon. It is anticipated that this meeting will lay down the parameters of government in a future Palestinian state.

The world has to understand that any effective fight against terror has to start with a just resolution of the Palestinian problem. Important issues related to this question have to be addressed by all members of the Quartet.

Israel also needs to play a positive role in this regard. Mere words will not do. Their stated intention of believing in peace needs to be translated into practice.

The US Administration continues to demand that the Palestinian Authority keep its part of the bargain with regard to providing security. They should similarly exert pressure on Israel to abide by agreed provisions. The presence of US Lt Gen. William Ward (the Special Representative of the US Secretary of State) in the region, will hopefully help in coordinating security contacts between the two sides. It will probably also enable the Palestinian security services to obtain travel permission within the occupied territories vital for finding those accused of criminal offences.

Israeli good faith can be further demonstrated by halting construction of their arbitrary territorial barrier and fresh settlements in the West Bank. Mere withdrawal from Gaza will not do if this is also accompanied by the construction of 6,000 news homes in occupied West Bank by the Israeli Lands Administration. Such action would be totally contrary to the US call for a freeze in settlement activity and also against the principles of the US proposed road-map. Such construction would also be totally against international law.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority and it security agencies will also have to do their bit if peace is to be seen in the region. It is not enough to say that they are against suicide bombings. They have to ensure that severe punishment is meted out to anyone associated in perpetrating such an act. They also need to persuade Islamic militant groups located in Syria and Lebanon that the peace process and the emergence of an independent Palestine is being affected by their interventions.

Such a demanding role cannot however be undertaken by the Palestinian Authority without support from the donor community. The Palestinian political institutions have to be strengthened. Necessary credit facilities will also have to be made available so that fresh employment opportunities can be created for the frustrated educated youth. There must be a palpable peace dividend. This is the only way that their leadership can gain the full support of the suffering Palestinians population.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador -- any response to [email protected]