THE trilateral summit at the Red Sea resort of Aqaba, Jordan, may have ended on an upbeat note for the participants, but not so for the audience. The ultra-right among the Israelis have been openly rejectionist in their reaction.
US president George Bush who cut a short his G-8 summitry related appointment at Evian to herald a summit with Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas and his Israeli counterpart Ariel Sharon at Aqaba waxed eloquent. Said he, "everyone has a right to peace", a statement that basically echoed the current two nations, two states thrust to US foreign policy on Middle East. This has had reverberations in what Sharon had to say after the summit on the intertwined issues of separate Palestinian homeland and peaceful co-existence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But mere freezing of new settlements cannot do, those already in existence need to be dismantled as a vital step forward in creating a separate homeland for the Palestinians.
Mahmoud Abbas, the prime minister of Palestine, has called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and violent acts vowing to work together with Sharon to implement the Middle East road map.
How have the detractors of Sharon and Abbas reacted to the summit outcome, given the changed circumstances? The answer is, very negatively indeed. The ultra-conservatives in Tel Aviv have made it abundantly clear that they are opposed to the existing settlements being dismantled at all. They are even unwilling to accept a 'divided Jerusalem' while the Palestinians would settle for nothing less than full control of the holy city.
On the Palestinian side, Hamas and Islamic Jehad have been sharply critical of the exhortations. They have refused to lay down arms until a single centimetre of the Israeli-occupied land is returned to the Palestinians.
This is not the first time that the Israeli and Palestinian leaders have shaken hands under the benign canopy of a smiling US president. But there is a difference. For better or worse who knows? Only time will tell. And, it is two fold: first, the latest US sponsorship of the peace process comes on the back of US invasion of Iraq signifying an extended power-play in the region. A comprehensive peace plan is being talked about -- involving Syria and Lebanon as well. So, there is an element of pressure it. The setting in which the road map has been announced is compelling, let alone the blue-print coming from the top. Furthermore, they are dealing with a man of their choice Mahmoud Abbas, and not Yasser Arafat, even though the latter's popularity rating was higher than Abbas's.
The clincher of change will be how the US uses its clout with the Israelis, because the Palestinians are not only the weaker side but also at the receiving end of the superior military might of Tel Aviv. Given the implacable relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians there had to be mediated talks and guided summits. To top it off, as soon as these ended, there would be no follow-up either. That has been the unfortunate trend so far. But we believe it is time the contending parties developed a mechanism of their own to carry forward the process of negotiations to a point of final resolution.
The key to solution of the Middle East problem is held by the USA. It has to work for a just and fair order so that durable peace can take root in the hearts and minds of people. Neither the geopolitical card should be overplayed nor the Zionist lobby allowed to influence US decision-making at this point in time. It is the arming of Tel Aviv to the teeth that has recoiled, something which no fair-minded US leadership can ignore anymore. At the same time, we would like the spiral of extremist violence to stop.
However fragile the peace process maybe, we want it to succeed to see "a fully sovereign, equal and independent Palestinian state" emerge.