Middle East peace

There appears to be a green signal at the end of the tunnel as President George W. Bush calls for an end to Israel's 41 years occupation of Palestinian lands and states a commitment to forge a peace agreement before the end of his term in office, which expires in January, 2009. The announcement came when President Bush, the first American president to visit Ramallah, went to the headquarters of the Palestinian authority on January 9.
For almost seven and a half years, the Bush administration has paid little attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Only last year, in November, the Bush administration organised international meeting on Palestinian issue where both the Israeli prime minister and president of Palestinian authority jointly pledged to end "bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our people" although violence has escalated over territorial disputes and security concerns after the meeting.
Having meeting with the President of the Palestinian authority Mahmoud Abbas President Bush pointed out that there should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967 and an agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Earlier, he had frank discussion with Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem .
It is the occupation that stands at the crux of the conflict, and which exacted a terrible price on the side of the Palestinians. Today, there is a generation of Palestinians who know nothing about the episode that took place in 1948.
President Bush has spoken about the requirement by both sides to abide by their agreement as enunciated in the road map, including halt to any Israeli expansion of settlements, and recognised that a future Palestine state must be viable, contiguous and sovereign. This position of the president deserves applause.
It is true that the President has changed rhetoric by saying that Palestine state must be viable and contiguous, whereas, the eight mile long corridor between Gaza strip and the West Bank belongs to Israel. Without connecting Gaza strip with the West Bank a Palestinian state would be unstable and vulnerable. The size of Gaza strip is like that of District of Colombia, the capital of the United States. If the corridor is handed over to the Palestinian, Palestine will be contiguous in that case. There is no agreement between Israel and Palestinian authority for sharing water and electricity. Both Gaza strip and West Bank have scarce resources.
The continued presence of some 220,000 Jewish settlers in much-coveted West Bank remains a big question. The segregation wall, 425 miles long (longer than Berlin Wall), covering some Palestinian lands, particularly best cultivable lands, is another tactics of the Israeli government to grab Palestinian lands in the name of Israeli security.
Another good point that has been raised by the president is that Palestinian refugees should be compensated for the loss of homes when they fled during establishment of Israel. According to Washington Post of January 11, until now Bush has resisted the Clinton administration position that the refugees should receive compensation for their losses and sufferings. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had also placed a comprehensive peace plan in March last year, which speaks for return or compensation in line with UN General Assembly resolution 194.
Possibly two considerations might have prompted the president to push forward the stalled peace process. That the image of the United States is tied with the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, and that the president might have realised that finding a solution of the Israel and Palestine problem as a part of his legacy would improve the image of the United States in the Middle East.
Mohammad Amjad Hossain, former Bangladesh diplomat writes from Virginia.