Some readers have mailed me asking what was on the table at the recent summit in Egypt.
Whilst one can never determine what the private channels were attempting to negotiate, the open public channels presumably had the following on their immediate agenda:
1. Prisoner Releases
The issue of prisoner releases always depicts gap between what the two sides regard as acceptable compromises. The Palestinians last week rejected an offer by Israel to release 900 Palestinian prisoners. The PA is insisting that the list of prisoners to be released include individuals that have been directly related to the murder of Israelis. Israeli opinion is divided on the issue. IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon is prepared to release some prisoners with blood on their hands where their crimes were perpetrated before Oslo. Shin Bet Chief Avi Dichter however is opposed to any such deal.
2. Security Control in West Bank Urban Centres
Under Oslo, the West Bank was divided into Areas A, B, and C. A areas became under Palestinian civil and security control, whilst the B areas were under Palestinian civil but Israeli security control. The Palestinians want more B areas to become A areas. (The Clinton parameters, if accepted by Arafat, would have turned 97% of the West Bank over to full Palestinian control. It would have been one contiguous area of Palestinian territory.)
The Israeli security cabinet agreed on Thursday to hand over the city of Jericho to PA security control. Tulkarm, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Qalqilya would then be transferred gradually to Palestinian control, whilst Israel will retain security control in Jenin, Nablus and Hebron. The Palestinian leadership maintain that they are ready to assume control of all urban centres in the West Bank.
3. Israel's Security Policy during the Ceasefire Period
The concern here for Israel is that they need to show the Palestinians that the consequence of violence will be increasing Israeli demands. At the same time, they need to reward "quiet with quiet" as Sharon put it. Many contend that for a ceasefire to have any meaning, Israel will need to refrain from targeting Palestinians known to have been involved in acts of murder, but who do not constitute an immediate danger. This view is supported by IDF Chief of Staff Ya’alon as well as PM Sharon. It is opposed, however, by Shin Bet Chief Avi Dichter.
Underlying all these issues is the central question of what Israel may legitimately require from the new Palestinian Administration in order to conclude that a credible partner has emerged, and that a return to the Roadmap is feasible. For meaningful negotiations to resume the Palestinian leadership must show a real effort to challenge, defeat, and dismantle terrorist organisations committed to the destruction of Israel.
I think Shaul Mofaz (Defence Minister, and perhaps the most highly regarded Israeli as far as the Palestinian security leaders are concerned) sums the summit up best when he says
“I don’t expect huge progress in one day, but that the meeting will be a milestone for the beginning of a new era.”
Israel holds all the risk here. They have to relinquish tangible land for an intangible peace. Once the land has been relinquished, they cannot sue to have it returned even if Palestinian violence continues.
Comments