of Israeli-Palestinian peace
There is still far to go on the already-long road to a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but reaching that goal is both possible and important to the stability of the Middle East, concluded participants in a conference held April 7 at the Law School.
Titled "Reviving Aspirations of Peace: Strategies for an Israeli-Palestinian Accord," the program was sponsored by Yale Law School, the Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights and the Yale Middle East Law Forum.
In the afternoon session, leading actors in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority discussed the prospects for lasting peace in the region.
The speakers included negotiators from the Israeli and Palestinian sides, as well as an American official who was involved in the process under President Clinton.
Law School Dean Anthony Kronman opened the discussion by recalling the response that many people had to the negotiations that took place at Camp David in July 2000 and terminated in January 2001 with a resumption of conflict.
"As we watched, listened, followed the reports day by day from Camp David, never did peace seem closer," recalled Kronman. The frustration when negotiations fell apart was more profound, he said, because of how near and possible peace had felt.
"That peace must come is beyond doubt," contended Kronman, adding that peace will be created through efforts to return to the difficult process of negotiation, compromise and settlement. He urged the panelists both to look at what had gone wrong with earlier negotiations and to use that understanding to think about how to move forward.
Panel moderator Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico and current director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, also looked back to activities in the year 2000.
He noted that he was in Israel in March 2000, working on a free-trade agreement between Mexico and Israel. "I did it because I thought that in the future that is going to be a great area of the world. ... I also thought [the treaty] could be a very modest gesture from Mexico to the region." He said he left Israel feeling hopeful.
"Now we have to look to the future," Zedillo added.
Shlomo Ben Ami, the former Israeli minister of foreign affairs and chief Israeli negotiator at Camp David, stated that Israeli-Palestinian peace is a central pillar to the stability of the entire Middle East.
The collapse of the peace process was not caused by negotiation tactics or slight differences, contended Ben Ami. "The problem is one of a clash of emphasis. ... In my view, it is much more fundamental." The differences between the two sides include religion, memory, language, settlements and refugees, he noted.
Ben Ami said he didn't know of a case in history where two parties established trust while one was an occupier and the other was occupied. While he admitted that no agreement could be fully just to both sides, he added, "Peace is not without justice. ... Peace is about stability, because you will never agree, between the two parties, what is justice.
"There is no easy way to peace. There is no peace without agony," continued Ben Ami. He called for future negotiations to be conducted under an international mandate for peace, including monitoring and supervision with sanctions -- "mechanisms of implementation that are very strict and binding," he said. Agreements should not be open ended, he added, but should provide an agreed framework, with small margins for maneuvering between the parties.
Hassan Abdul Rahman, the chief representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian National Authority in the United States, concurred with Ben Ami's assessment of the importance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians -- as well as its challenges. He called it a "conflict about existence" and noted that for many years the two parties did not acknowledge each other's right to existence.
"I know what is the future between us and the Israelis. The quarrel is over the past," added Abdul Rahman.
"The Palestinians approach this knowing that the balance of power is not in their favor," he said, pointing out that they hope for a process that works by a "balance of interests."
But, Abdul Rahman said, peace would be impossible as long as one side was superior and had more privileges. He also described the tremendous pressures put on the Palestinian populace and its leaders by the disproportionate use of resources by Israeli settlers within the Palestinian territories.
Abdul Rahman said he thought the "roadmap" drafted by the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, was a good start for the peace process, because it spells out the final outcome of an independent Palestinian state.
"We have started unilaterally implementing the road map," he said. "We want ... to make a down payment on the process." He also suggested that both parties agree on a time frame for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Robert Malley, a former special assistant to President ,Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs, said he was disappointed that the current U.S. administration, which has exerted its will in other areas of foreign policy, hasn't engaged more in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Furthermore, he said, he was concerned that the level of engagement wouldn't rise much. "After Iraq, U.S. priorities will still be Iraq," said Malley, who is now director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group. However, he noted, the situation doesn't have to remain stagnant.
Malley outlined several current elements of optimism. After the long spell of violence, with its economic and emotional difficulty, he said, "people are tired of the way their lives have been."
In addition, Malley saw "subterranean convergence" on several key issues, such as the size of a future Palestinian territory and the right of return. He also said that several Arab countries have come to see peace as vital to their own self-interest.
Malley identified good and bad elements to the proposed "roadmap" to peace. He praised its support for a sovereign Palestinian state and its delegitimization of Israeli settlements, but he worried it didn't contain a definite enough endpoint. He called for the U.S. to support an international effort to drive the peace process forward.
"Put a peace plan on the table and say 'This is what we feel would be a fair solution,'" he said.
-- By Jonathan T. Weisberg
T H I S
W E E K ' SS T O R I E S
Yale affiliates win Pulitzer Prizes
Brown president: Affirmative action must evolve . . .
Negotiators assess prospect of Israeli-Palestinian peace
NASA needs more engineers, says alumnus astronaut
UNIVERSITY TEACH-INSMilitary expenditures only part of the cost of war, say panelists
Repercussions of conflict could be far-ranging, assert experts
Cruz relishes 'simple' pleasures of winning Pulitzer
Study: Carbohydrate level is not a factor in weight loss
Oh, the horror! Author Stephen King to read from forthcoming book
Promising entrepreneurs win awards for new business ideas
Celebrating a World of Diversity at Yale
Franz Rosenthal, scholar of Arabic literature and Islam, dies
Event to examine international financial institutions
Researchers win awards for psychiatric studies
Whiffenpoofs concert to benefit local group
BIG thoughts
CENTURY to provide funding for pilot projects
Free therapy offered as part of research study on depression
Campus Notes
Bulletin Home|Visiting on Campus|Calendar of Events|In the News
Bulletin Board|Yale Scoreboard|Classified Ads|Search Archives|Deadlines
Bulletin Staff|Public Affairs Home|News Releases|
E-Mail Us|Yale Home Page