PDA

Visualizza Versione Completa : Cosa avvenne a Taba: progressi, ma niente accordi



Jan Hus
01-04-02, 23:25
Mideast Talks End With Gain But No Accord

By DEBORAH SONTAG and WILLIAM A. ORME Jr. (NYT) 1372 words

JERUSALEM, Jan. 27 -- Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials concluded nearly a week of stop-and-start negotiations in Taba, Egypt, tonight by saying jointly that they have ''never been closer to reaching'' a final peace accord but lacked sufficient time to conclude one before the Israeli elections on Feb. 6.
Both sides also said Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel and Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, might meet within days in Stockholm. It would be their first face-to-face conversation since a dinner at Mr. Barak's private home just before the current violence erupted in late September.


At a joint news conference in Taba, Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami of Israel called the two-way talks, from which the Americans were conspicuously absent, ''the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations in this phase of the peace process.'' He said the two sides hoped to pick up where they left off after the elections -- although his boss, Mr. Barak, is expected to lose.

Less expansively, Ahmed Qurei, a senior Palestinian official, spoke genially of a ''genuine effort'' at ''serious negotiations'' that could help restore trust between the two sides.

He said the Palestinians also hoped to resume the talks after the Israeli elections -- even if it was with Mr. Barak's opponent, Ariel Sharon of the right-wing Likud Party, who has a strong lead in the polls.

''Mr. Sharon -- when he comes, if he will come, I don't know, this is not our business -- then if he wants to continue, welcome,'' Mr. Qurei said in answer to a question.

In the language and spirit of their vague joint announcement, however, Israeli and Palestinian officials suggested that they were on the verge of a breakthrough on which only this Israeli government could make good.

As such, the Palestinians, who are alarmed at the prospect of Mr. Sharon, appeared to be trying to give Mr. Barak a last-minute hand -- whether helpful or ultimately damaging remains to be seen.

While it was a political gamble for Mr. Barak even to send his peace team to Taba this week, he is 16 to 18 points behind in the polls and did not have much to lose.

After the talks finished, President Bush spoke with Mr. Barak for seven minutes today, and voiced his ''desire to see peace in the region based on a secure Israel,'' said Mary Ellen Countryman, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.

With the Americans on the sidelines for a change, European diplomats have been shuttling between the two sides to try to engineer a meeting between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. They last came together for cease-fire talks in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, in October, but did not actually talk.

It was a roller-coaster of a week in Taba. In the first two days, both delegations said they had never seen the other side so prepared to discuss detailed ''final status'' arrangements, and so seemingly willing to contemplate fundamental compromises. If it were not for those who existed outside the hotel, some joked, a deal could definitely be reached.

Proposed Palestinian maps ceded major Jewish settlements to Israel. Israeli negotiators were said to be wrestling with language that would for the first time officially acknowledge the suffering -- and the right to compensation -- of Palestinian refugees displaced from what is now Israel.

Both sides were reportedly examining leasing arrangements that would keep Israeli military posts at strategic points in the Jordan Valley.

''The atmosphere at the outset was extremely warm, and extremely serious, with real political will to strike a deal,'' said Miguel Moratinos, the European Union envoy to the Middle East, who monitored the talks closely from Taba.

But even then, Palestinians complained that the Israelis appeared internally divided about their own aims. Were they to seek a framework accord for an inclusive final-status agreement, or simply to pursue technical talks on a range of issues while building toward a statement of intent to continue after the elections? Some Israelis, too, said the mission was unclear.

It became clearer after the West Bank killing of two Israeli civilians on Tuesday. A two-day halt called by Israel broke the talks' momentum. On Thursday, Israeli negotiators returned from meetings with Mr. Barak in Jerusalem with instructions to lower their sights.

Tempers frayed as Palestinians said the Israelis appeared to be toughening previous positions on refugees, security installations and other issues.

''Barak decided that making the concessions Israel would need to make would be suicidal politically,'' a Western diplomat said after speaking to both delegations.

But negotiators were still striving to ensure that any future negotiations would pick up where they had left off. Key Israeli and Palestinian officials were trying to create a detailed, permanent record of the talks' progress -- ''a kind of formal or informal 'deposit,' as was done in negotiations with Syria and elsewhere, for the collective memory of the two societies,'' Mr. Moratinos said.

Although Mr. Sharon has said he intends to disregard what transpired at Taba, Mr. Qurei said tonight, ''The outcomes of the negotiations are binding for both sides, so they can resume from the point that they stopped at today.''

Chatting on the air with a Voice of Palestine radio interviewer during the talks, Saeb Erekat, a longtime Palestinian negotiator, likened the on-again, off-again sessions with the Israelis ''to bargaining in a bazaar.''

In talks held on the Red Sea shore a few years back, he said, Israel was offering to pull out of 66 percent of the West Bank, plus a 14 percent ''partial withdrawal.'' The proposal was increased in more recent discussions in Stockholm to 76 percent and 12 percent, respectively, and then rose to 89 percent in plans put forward by Israel at Camp David last summer, Mr. Erekat said.

But now, he said, the Israelis were accepting the basic geographical parameters of a settlement formula suggested by then-President Clinton, with Israel ceding around 95 percent of the West Bank.

Annexed to Israel, under the plan discussed in Taba, would be three major border-area Jewish settlement blocs centered on Gush Etzion in the south, the Jerusalem suburb of Maale Adumim, and, deepest within Palestinian territory, the town of Ariel in the northern West Bank. Israel would partly compensate by carving off smaller pockets of land from its sovereign territory and ceding those to the Palestinians.

From a Palestinian perspective, the Israelis negotiating in Taba were almost their ideal interlocutors. All have a long personal history of involvement in official and informal discussions with the Palestinians in the last decade. Yossi Beilin, the minister of justice, and Mr. Ben-Ami are perhaps the strongest advocates of a peace settlement in the Labor Party leadership. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, the tourism and transportation minister, was deeply involved in previous negotiations as the Israeli army chief of staff. Yossi Sarid, the leader of the leftist Meretz faction, is an outspoken critic of West Bank settlements and a proponent of Palestinian statehood.

''If we had quality political time, we could have definitely reached an agreement,'' Mr. Ben-Ami said.

But the ''peace cabinet,'' as Mr. Barak calls his negotiating team, represents only a minority of Israel's Parliament, and, according to opinion polls, a diminishing share of the public at large.

And running the show, diplomats said, was Gilead Sher, Mr. Barak's strong-willed chief of staff, who consulted constantly with the prime minister by mobile phone. At one point in the negotiations, Mr. Sher coolly informed his Palestinian counterparts that if a proposal was aired when he was out of the room, it should not be considered an official Israeli position.

Nonetheless, the joint Israeli-Palestinian statement concludes: ''We leave Taba in a spirit of hope and mutual achievement acknowledging that the foundations have been laid both in re-establishing mutual confidence and having progressed in a substantive engagement on all core issues.''

Jan Hus
01-04-02, 23:32
In sostanza: a Taba si fecero progressi, ma non si raggiunse un accordo finale.

Il motivo principale fu che mancava UNA SOLA SETTIMANA alle elezioni in Israele, e quindi mancava il tempo per perfezionare l'accordo.

Va detto che niente garantisce che, se l'accordo fosse stato raggiunto, sarebbe stato approvato, tanto dagli israeliani, quanto dagli arabi.

Ciò nonostante, le parti si accordarono per incontrarsi di nuovo a Stoccolma.

Ed ecco cosa successe.

Jan Hus
01-04-02, 23:36
January 29, 2001, Monday
FOREIGN DESK


Arafat Calls Israel Fascist; Barak Scraps Meeting With Him

By DEBORAH SONTAG (NYT) 626 words

JERUSALEM, Jan. 28 -- After Yasir Arafat delivered an impassioned denunciation of what he called Israel's ''savage and barbaric war'' against the Palestinians, Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided today not to meet Mr. Arafat in Stockholm later this week.
Mr. Barak also said that he would suspend Israel's participation in the peace effort until after the Feb. 6 Israeli election for prime minister, which he is expected to lose to Ariel Sharon, the right-wing Likud Party leader.


European envoys had been trying to engineer a meeting between Mr. Arafat, the Palestinian leader, and Mr. Barak to follow up on the peace negotiations in Taba, Egypt, last week. In Taba, the two sides engaged in substantive, constructive debate on major issues but failed to forge an agreement for what they said was lack of time.

At the world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, today, the morning after senior Israeli and Palestinian officials in Taba went a long way toward restoring trust, Mr. Arafat issued a broadside that the Israelis were not expecting.

''The current government in Israel is waging and has waged for the past four months a savage and barbaric war as well as a blatant and fascist military aggression against our Palestinian people,'' Mr. Arafat said.

Shimon Peres, a former Israeli prime minister and a central peacemaker, made it clear to the international audience in Switzerland that he was taken aback. ''I must admit that I came prepared for a wedding, not a divorce,'' he said. He proceeded, however, to urge Mr. Arafat to build on what took place in Taba and to conclude a peace agreement in the coming weeks.

''Let us restrain our voices and see the horizon,'' he said.

The two men finished with a handshake to a standing ovation by political and business leaders in Switzerland, completing an unanticipated display of the complex Israeli-Palestinian relationship before a live international audience.

In polls, Mr. Peres is shown running neck and neck with Mr. Sharon, while Mr. Barak lags behind by 16 to 18 percentage points. Many Israelis have urged Mr. Barak to step down and let Mr. Peres be the peace camp's candidate. This remains a technical possibility until Friday, although Mr. Barak has said that he will run until the very end.

Mr. Barak's office said that security contacts between the two sides will continue in the next week. It also said that Mr. Barak communicated his decision against a Stockholm meeting to the Swedish prime minister and to the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan.

Some Israeli political analysts speculated tonight that Mr. Barak's decision was not provoked by Mr. Arafat's speech in Switzerland but by indications that the Palestinian leader was going to turn down the meeting himself.

Many Palestinians would frown at such a meeting now, and if Mr. Barak is indeed going to lose the election, it might not be worth the cost to Mr. Arafat, the Israeli analysts theorized.

Today, Mr. Sharon condemned the Taba talks as ''an election ploy.''

Mr. Barak, in turn, attacked what he said would be the ''extremism'' of a Sharon government, which would be ''dangerous to the country and inappropriate for us to join.'' He was responding to Mr. Sharon's repeated insistence that if he wins next week, he will seek to forge a unity government with Mr. Barak's Labor Party. Without the Labor Party, Mr. Sharon would lead what is likely to be an unstable coalition from the start.

''I suppose that Ehud Barak will also understand the responsibility that is placed on all of our shoulders,'' Mr. Sharon said. ''I will establish a national unity government. Period.''

Jan Hus
01-04-02, 23:45
Ricapitolando: a Taba le delegazioni israeliana e palestinese s'incontrano, fanno progressi e si accordano affinché i colloqui continuino.

Nel frattempo, la diplomazia internazionale cerca di adoperarsi per organizzare un incontro a Stoccolma tra Barak e Arafat.

In questo contesto, Arafat pronuncia, incredibilmente, un discorso allo World Economic Forum di Davos, nel quale accusa Israele di condurre, da quattro mesi, una guerra barbarica e selvaggia, oltre ad una palese e fascista aggressione contro il nostro popolo palestinese."

In queste condizioni, Barak annulla il previsto incontro con Arafat.

Secondo alcuni analisti politici israeliani, la cui opinione è riferita dal New York Times, la decisione sarebbe stata indotta anche dalla convinzione che Arafat stesse per rifiutare la possibilità di un colloquio a Stoccolma.

Inoltre, l'incontro era malvisto anche da molti palestinesi, i quali ritenevano che, con la prospettiva di una vittoria di Sharon (prospettiva che, va ricordato, era in gran parte la conseguenza del comportamento di Arafat dopo Camp David), Arafat non avrebbe corso il rischio di incontrarsi con Sharon.

Questo è il comportamento da statista di Arafat; dell'Arafat "uomo di pace", dell'Arafat "unico interlocutore possibile".

Risultato: una settimana dopo è stato eletto Sharon.

E tanti saluti.

Jan Hus
01-04-02, 23:58
February 8, 2001, Thursday
EDITORIAL DESK


Foreign Affairs; Sharon, Arafat and Mao


By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN ( Op-Ed ) 796 words

So I'm at the Davos World Economic Forum two weeks ago, and Shimon Peres walks by. One of the reporters with him asks me if I'm going to hear Mr. Peres and Yasir Arafat address the 1,000 global investors and ministers attending Davos. No, I tell him, I have a strict rule, I'm only interested in what Mr. Arafat says to his own people in Arabic. Too bad, says the reporter, because the fix is in. Mr. Peres is going to extend an olive branch to Mr. Arafat, Mr. Arafat is going to do the same back and the whole love fest will get beamed back to Israel to boost the peace process and Ehud Barak's re-election. Good, I'll catch it on TV, I said.

Well, Mr. Peres did extend the olive branch, as planned, but Mr. Arafat torched it. Reading in Arabic from a prepared text, Mr. Arafat denounced Israel for its ''fascist military aggression'' and ''colonialist armed expansionism,'' and its policies of ''murder, persecution, assassination, destruction and devastation.''


Mr. Arafat's performance at Davos was a seminal event, and is critical for understanding Ariel Sharon's landslide election. What was Mr. Arafat saying by this speech, with Mr. Peres sitting by his side? First, he was saying that there is no difference between Mr. Barak and Mr. Sharon. Because giving such a speech on the eve of the Israeli election, in the wake of an 11th-hour Barak bid to conclude a final deal with the Palestinians in Taba, made Mr. Barak's far-reaching offer to Mr. Arafat look silly. Moreover, Mr. Arafat was saying that there is no difference between Mr. Peres and Mr. Sharon, because giving such a speech just after the warm words of Mr. Peres made Mr. Peres look like a dupe, as all the Israeli papers reported. Finally, at a time when Palestinians are starving for work, Mr. Arafat's subliminal message to the global investors was: Stay away.

That's why the press is asking exactly the wrong question about the Sharon election. They're asking, who is Ariel Sharon? The real question is, who is Yasir Arafat? The press keeps asking: Will Mr. Sharon become another Charles de Gaulle, the hard-line general who pulled the French Army out of Algeria? Or will he be Richard Nixon, the anti-Communist who made peace with Communist China? Such questions totally miss the point.

Why? Because Israel just had its de Gaulle. His name was Ehud Barak. Mr. Barak was Israel's most decorated soldier. He abstained in the cabinet vote over the Oslo II peace accords. But once in office he changed 180 degrees. He offered Mr. Arafat 94 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state, plus territorial compensation for most of the other 6 percent, plus half of Jerusalem, plus restitution and resettlement in Palestine for Palestinian refugees. And Mr. Arafat not only said no to all this, but described Israel as ''fascist'' as Mr. Barak struggled for re-election. It would be as though de Gaulle had offered to withdraw from Algeria and the Algerians said: ''Thank you. You're a fascist. Of course we'll take all of Algeria, but we won't stop this conflict until we get Bordeaux, Marseilles and Nice as well.''

If the Palestinians don't care who Ariel Sharon is, why should we? If Mr. Arafat wanted an Israeli leader who would not force him to make big decisions, which he is incapable of making, why should we ask whether Mr. Sharon is going to be de Gaulle and make him a big offer? What good is it for Israel to have a Nixon if the Palestinians have no Mao?

The Olso peace process was about a test. It was about testing whether Israel had a Palestinian partner for a secure and final peace. It was a test that Israel could afford, it was a test that the vast majority of Israelis wanted and it was a test Mr. Barak courageously took to the limits of the Israeli political consensus -- and beyond. Mr. Arafat squandered that opportunity. Eventually, Palestinians will ask for a makeup exam. And eventually Israelis may want to give it to them, if they again see a chance to get this conflict over with. But who knows what violence and pain will be inflicted in the meantime?

All we know is that for now, the Oslo test is over. That is what a vast majority of Israelis said in this election. So stop asking whether Mr. Sharon will become de Gaulle. That is not why Israelis elected him. They elected him to be Patton. They elected Mr. Sharon because they know exactly who he is, and because seven years of Oslo have taught them exactly who Yasir Arafat is.