|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Africa Western Hemisphere |
| July 14, 2000 Camp David II: 'Fierce Debates' Amid 'Pastoral Ambience' |
Middle East watchers this week judged that the mere fact that the "high stakes" Israeli-Palestinian-American summit at Camp David took place at all constituted some degree of success. The majority, however, doubted that it would duplicate the achievement of Camp David I in 1978 when Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed the first Arab-Israeli peace pact after the 1967 Mideast war. Most noted that while neither Israeli Prime Minister Barak nor PLO Chairman appeared to have the domestic strength of their Camp David predecessors, their war-weary constituencies were likely to vote for peace. Commentators held out hope that, at a minimum, the summit would result in some mutual understanding for the future of a Palestinian state, with the intractable problems of Jerusalem and refugees left for further negotiation. Most judged that the meeting will reach another "fork in the road" next week when the Clinton administration is expected to present papers bridging Israeli and Palestinian views on contentious core issues next week. Following are editorial and opinion polling highlights:
ISRAEL: Opinion polls in Israel showed the public split on at least three major aspects of the summit: U.S. objectivity, Prime Minister Barak's effectiveness and the willingness to accept any permanent agreement that Mr. Barak brings home with him. A poll in popular, pluralist Maariv indicated that 40 percent of Israelis feel President Clinton is an objective mediator, but 24 percent feel he is pro-Israeli while another 24 percent think the President is pro-Palestinian. A Channel 2-TV poll showed that 49 percent of Israelis are ready to accept any permanent agreement Prime Minister Barak brings with him from Camp David. Some 32 percent said they will oppose any such agreement. But a full 60 percent oppose letting the Palestinians run their municipal services in East Jerusalem, said the poll. Meanwhile, Israeli papers characterized the cancellation of Israel's sale of the Phalcon radar system to China as a casualty of the peace summit. "The Americans used brutal force, as one would expect a superpower to treat a banana republic...which left Israel with no choice but to kill the deal," Tel Aviv's mass circulation, pluralist Yediot maintained.
PALESTINIANS: As Palestinian opposition leaders arrived in Washington today in hopes of conferring with PLO Chairman Arafat, Palestinian papers likened the negotiations to a "good cop-bad cop scenario" performed by the Americans and the Israelis. Semiofficial Al-Hayat Al-Jadida opined that the summit "is becoming more like an interrogation center to exert pressure on the Palestinians so they 'confess.'"
U.S. INTERESTS: Pundits also focused on U.S. interests in the Middle East. An Israeli paper contended that the U.S. desire to "compensate" Saudi Arabia for its role in dropping world oil prices will be a factor in the administration's bridge proposal concerning Jersusalem. A German paper warned that if President Clinton goes too far in granting security guarantees for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, Washington could be pulled even further into "risky" Mideast deals.
EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 52 reports from 34 countries July 11-14. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
ISRAEL: "Israelis Split On Barak Mandate, And On Approval Of Any Camp David Deal"
A poll in popular, pluralist Maariv (7/14) indicated that 40 percent of Israelis feel President Clinton is an objective mediator, but 24 percent feel he is pro-Israeli and another 24 percent think the President is pro-Palestinian. The poll also indicated that Israelis are split about evenly on Barak's ability to properly handle the Camp David talks; that 41 percent believe the talks will produce no agreement, against 34 percent who feel it will, and 25 percent who admit they do not know. The Israelis are also split 47 to 47 percent on whether the collapse of his coalition left Barak with a mandate to conduct the Camp David negotiations. As to new elections now, 56 percent approve and 40 percent oppose elections now. A Channel 2-TV poll showed that 49 percent of Israelis are ready to accept any permanent agreement Prime Minister Barak brings with him from Camp David. Some 32 percent said they will oppose any such agreement. But a full 60 percent oppose letting the Palestinians run their municipal services in East Jerusalem, said the poll.
"Barak's Peace Offering"
Analysts Shimon Shiffer and Nachum Barnea wrote in mass circulation, pluralist Yediot (7/14): "Barak would like to get through the Camp David summit with him and the U.S. bound together like Siamese twins. To that end, he sacrificed the Phalcon deal with China. The Americans used brutal force, as one would expect a superpower to treat a banana republic...which left Israel with no choice but to kill the deal. But the summit forced Barak to yield sooner than he had planned. In that sense, the Phalcon became the victim of the peace summit.... On other matters, Barak was less cooperative. The Americans wanted Israel to take some 'confidence building' measures, such as the release of prisoners, handing over Abu Dis and more economic gestures toward the Palestinians. But Barak was in no hurry.... Barak's confident Gil'ad Sher said that only toward the conclusion of the summit, when it becomes clear that progress is being made, will Barak agree perhaps to release Palestinian prisoners. Not a day sooner."
"Paper Bridges Are Dangerous"
Conservative pundit Moshe Zak commented in independent Jerusalem Post (7/14): "For many years, Israel has upheld its alliance with the U.S., treading firmly on an iron and concrete bridge of partnership and friendship. The United States has stood by Israel without hesitation. But this week at Camp David, Israel exchanged the iron bridge it was walking on for one made out of paper. Without serious thought, Israel has forced the U.S. into a route that requires Clinton to offer papers bridging the two extremes of Arafat and Barak--on the issues of Jerusalem and the refugees. This is not bridging differences; on the contrary, it is pushing Israel into a conflict with the United States about the most critical issue of a united Jerusalem.... A 'senior source' on Barak's plane admitted this week that the American positions on Jerusalem and refugees are closer to those of the Palestinians. He didn't draw the inescapable conclusion that Israel must stay away from American bridging proposals on these issues. In addition to the known facts, President Clinton has a predicament which is a consequence of the oil crisis: The concern that the United States will have to compensate Saudi Arabia for its willingness to contribute to a fall in world oil prices as a gesture for benefits to the Moslems, especially in Jerusalem.... The
Israelis have already agreed that the Palestinian flag may be flown on the Temple Mount, but the Arabs aren't content with this gesture. They want more, and Clinton and his Jewish aides had their eye on the Saudi question when they wrote their bridging papers."
"The Right Decision"
Defense analyst Zeev Schiff wrote in a frontpage commentary in independent Ha'aretz (7/13): "Once the U.S. Congress forced Israel to face a profit-loss balance sheet over the sale of the Phalcon spy plane to China, there was no choice but to cancel the deal. Had Israel insisted on going ahead with the transaction, its prospects of getting economic aid for a possible agreement with the Palestinians would have been reduced to zero. The decision to abort the deal was the right one, taking into account Israel's dependence on the United States and the concrete danger of dealing a death blow to its relations with Congress. Still, Israel's arguments were valid: The Phalcon would not endanger U.S. forces in the Straits of Taiwan, not even in the event of a Sino-American war. The United States itself has sold advanced equipment to China, and Secretary of Defense William Cohen is currently in China to bolster relations between the Pentagon and the Chinese military."
"The Right Of Return"
Analyst Daoud Kuttab wrote in independent Jerusalem Post (7/13): "Arafat will not and cannot compromise on 'the right of return.' This right has been enshrined in UN Resolution 194, which was approved by the entire world, including the United States. Prime Minister Barak would be wise to accept this inalienable right from the start."
WEST BANK: "Good Cop, Bad Cop"
Hafiz Barghouti opined in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (7/14): "What is happening outside of Camp David gives a good indication of what is happening inside it.... The Israeli delegates are free to roam around and say anything they want. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are isolated under 'Israeli restrictions' and are prohibited from moving around or saying anything.... This summit is becoming more like an interrogation center to exert pressure on the Palestinians so they 'confess.' This interrogation process is handled by two interrogators, a bad one, performed by the Israelis, and a good one, performed by the Americans."
"A Lesson From The First Camp David"
Rajab Abu Sarieh opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (7/14): "The American side considers the suggested Israeli scenarios as sincere attempts towards finding a solution, while disregarding whether these scenarios are, in fact, legal. And knowing that the only way they can become legal is through Palestinian approval, this approval has become a diplomatic and negotiation goal, not only for the Israelis but also for the Americans. If there is a lesson for the American host to learn from, it would be that of President Carter, who lost the elections to his Republican rival two years after the Camp David summit. This means that even a successful summit in Camp David is not an assurance to the Democrats of winning the presidential elections."
"U.S. Through The Israeli Perspective"
Talal okal commented in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (7/13): "Will the United States be able to find an equation that satisfies both parties? It seems that this is more than difficult; it is nearly impossible if the United States remains biased toward Israel. The paradox is that the Palestinians feel that the United States is tending to pressure them to
reduce their level of demands below the national principles that the Central Council has ratified. The Israelis think that the United States is inclined more towards the Palestinians since any idea or suggestion that asks them to show some slight flexibility in their red lines is a concession to the Palestinians. This means that Israel is using its red lines as a criteria for judging American administration policy."
"Camp David II And The Biased American Role"
Fadel Bushnaq opined in independent, moderate Al-Quds (7/12): "When the American administration calls for holding a summit meeting between parties of the peace process, especially between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, it [the American administration] has no orientation or sincere desire to create an atmosphere of trust capable of narrowing the gap between the two sides. The American administration's role in all meetings is biased completely towards the Israeli side. Sometimes we even don't find any difference between the American and Israeli positions and decisions. This shows the biased role of the peace process sponsor. Therefore the American administration doesn't stand in the middle position that the peace process sponsor must occupy in order for all parties to reach a suitable solution acceptable by both parties and the American administration."
LEBANON: "Camp David And Refugees"
An editorial in pro-Syria Ash-Sharq held (7/13): "The closed walls surrounding Camp David did not hide the fact that the Americans are proposing mid-solutions that would satisfy all parties. However, it appears that the issues of the Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem will be postponed again. Information says that Clinton is exerting pressure to constrict the issue of the refugees to the multilateral negotiations. There is a big possibility that Arafat might approve such a solution. In this context, it is said that the Americans delegated Canada to execute a plan that aims at emigrating a part of the Palestinians to Canada and Australia."
"Ready For Anything"
An unsigned editorial in English-language, Beirut-based Daily Star held (7/12): "Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak may or not make peace at the summit... They may usher in a new era of regional diplomacy under which the Jewish State finally recognizes the legitimate rights of its neighbors and they finally welcome it among them. Or they may fail utterly to resolve the disputes that divide them and start a whole new round of mutual recrimination and sporadic violence. In one sense, however, nothing could matter less than the outcome of this possibly historic summit: The pace of change in the Arab world must be radically accelerated if we are to have any hope of providing our children and grandchildren with a better lot than we were born into. If there is to be peace and therefore the widely expected explosion of trade...within the region...we are uniquely ill-equipped to compete with Israel.... But that is no excuse to keep putting it off: On the contrary, we should be that much more obsessed with starting now so that whatever challenges confront us in six months or six decades, we will be that much better-prepared to deal with them."
EGYPT: "Cursed By Arabs 20 Years Ago, Camp David Had Become Hope And Dream"
Morsi Attallah, contributor, pro-government daily Al Ahram (7/13): "Arafat is not forced to accept any partial solutions that fall short of the Arab fixed principles of peace, as declared in the Arab summit in Cairo 1996.... At the end, the Camp David summit will not be a dispute about interpreting international resolutions, or discussing the legitimate rights of this party, and the security allegations of the other. It is about a living and actual clash of wills. The most influential element in this dispute at this summit is the psychological and moral element.... This
element depends on the extent to which each party, particularly the Palestinian, feels pressured by the tight deadline. If Arafat and his colleagues have stamina, without exaggeration or compromises, a real achievement can be made in the Middle East, and thanks will be given to President Clinton, and to Camp David--which was cursed by Arabs 20 years ago, and now has become their hope and dream."
"Mission Impossible"
Pro-government Al Akhbar held (7/13): "Worry spread among Arabs over the pressures for more concessions on legitimate rights that the Palestinian negotiators may face.... The Arab man on the street is more worried because of the clouds surrounding the American position as the sole mediator and summit sponsor. The United States is too eager to get any results from Camp David that may benefit the Democratic presidential nominee for the upcoming elections. This means the American mediation has nothing to contribute to international legitimacy and right, and consequently Barak will be left to practice his usual maneuvering, procrastination and blackmail.... I believe Barak should realize that a real Palestinian state is in Israel's interest. Barak and Arafat should show real political courage to achieve peace in Camp David.... The mission is difficult for both of them. If Barak struck a deal, the majority of Palestinians would approve it, because they want peace after 50 years of disputes and wars."
JORDAN: "Camp David: What Failure And What Success?"
Yaser Za'atreh wrote on the op-ed page of center-left, influential Al-Dustur (7/12): "When Jerusalem is being replaced by Abu Dis; when refugees become human cattle; when the territories of the homeland become subject for rent and exchange; when sovereignty becomes a relative issue and weapons become unimportant; when the men in the jails fall outside the scope of negotiations because they belong to Hamas or Jihad; when all of this happens, waiting for the outcome of the Camp David summit meeting is a worthless waste of time."
BAHRAIN: "Success Will Mean That America And Israel Have Isolated Arafat"
Semi-independent Akhbar Al-Khalij published this comment (7/10 ) by Sayed Zahra: "The success of the summit has only one meaning.... It will mean that America and Israel have isolated Arafat and succeeded in imposing the acceptance of what is unacceptable and having him give away what he should not given away.... Success will mean that the Palestinian issue has been assassinated not 'resolved.' Arafat is incapable of resisting the Americans and Israelis all by himself.... He is incapable of extracting his right from them. If there was a true intent intention of reaching a final just resolution, not an Israeli resolution, this summit would have been held with Arab participation.... The issues discussed in this summit are not Arafat's or the Palestinians' issues only... They are the issues of all the Arabs and Muslims.... That is why, the best position to take under the current circumstances is rejection.... The rejection of what Israel and America want to extract from Arafat with blackmail and force."
KUWAIT: "No Palestinian State, No Peace"
Abdulla Al-Shayji wrote in independent Al-Watan (7/12): "The new Camp David will not resolve 52 years of the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially the issues of Jerusalem and the refugees. What is expected from the summit is to reach a more complicated and thorough framework to discuss these issues... . The summit is a gamble because it will not help in the establishment of a Palestinian state, and even if it does, it will only be on 22% of the Palestinian land."
"Peace Now Will Enforce U.S. Position In The Region"
Independent Al-Rai Al-Aram carried this piece by Shafiq Al-Ghabra (7/12): "President Clinton acted now to hold a summit because the U.S. administration has now realized the dangers of not reaching a peace agreement soon for both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The administration is convinced now that 'no peace' will have a negative effect on the elections, the security of the Gulf, Iran and Iraq, and that any success will enforce the American position towards achieving a comprehensive peace in the region."
QATAR: "Settlement Seems To Be Imminent"
According to semiofficial Arrayah (7/11): "Settlement on the Palestinian track seems to be imminent. Strictly speaking, this means that the core file on Arab-Israeli conflict is closed. The U.S. president cannot call for such a summit without guaranteeing the minimum level of success. Washington's strategy seems to be gradual concessions. The expected settlement is likely to happen gradually by convening several summits over the next couple of months. However, the characteristics of the aimed settlement seem very risky on the Palestinians' front, particularly when we hear considerable talking about the billions of dollars to be received to settle the refugees issue."
SAUDI ARABIA: "A Dead Summit"
Dammam-based, moderate Al-Youm opined (7/13): "An atmosphere of frustration and uncertainty currently characterizes Arab public opinion, and coincides with Camp David II, which is no different than Camp David I.... Camp David II is an attempt to gain time in order to prepare Arab public opinion to surrender to unfair policies. The Jewish state uses these unfair policies to impose on Arabs the conditions, take it or leave it .... The Arab public has no need of Barak's five no's to further strengthen its state of pessimism.... Israel must understand that the Arab public opinion's perspective on peace has reached its peak and is almost dead with Camp David II."
"Barak's Elegant Talks About Peace Is Meaningless"
London-based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat editorialized (7/12): "The Israeli prime minister said that he is going to the Camp David summit to represent two million Israeli voters and not as a representative of the Knesset.... But, Barak in addressing the two million who elected him, thought it fitting to promise them five no's that represent his red lines...which show that Barak understands that Israeli public opinion has a tendency toward extremism and intransigence. In other words, all his elegant talk about peace is meaningless."
SYRIA: "Camp David Meeting"
Ezedin Darwish opined in government-owned Tishreen (7/12): "It is unreasonable to negotiate with Barak when he turns his back on international resolutions that constitute the basis of the peace process and he unleashes all his 'no's', loaded with intransigence and hegemony and rejection of peace. It is useful here to remind the American sponsor, especially President Clinton, of their obligations and commitments towards the peace process and its requirements."
TUNISIA: "Undue Restraint!"
Editor-in-Chief Mustapha Khammari wrote in independent, French-language Le Temps (7/14): "Because of its concern with respecting Israeli sensitivities, the international community is jeopardizing the MEPP.... This lack of resolve prevented the powerful countries of the world
from stating clearly that Israel has obstructed the peace process.... It was taboo to accuse Israel of engineering the bottlenecks.... Now, it appears that the United States has come to understand this mistake. Will the second Camp David mark a real change? Will the summit show more audacity and goodwill in its search for peace.... The whole world hopes that this new summit will be as decisive an event for the MEPP as the first one was.... After that summit, Egypt got back all of its occupied territories."
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Zionist Agenda Must Not Dictate The Meeting"
Abu Dhabi-based semi-official Arabic daily Al-Ittihad opined (7/12): "The Camp David summit starts with two files: a Palestinian file, based on clear decisions by the Palestinian Central Council regarding the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, the return of refugees and settlements; and an Israeli file, which stems from Barak's five no's which are backed by the demands anounced by the religious parties.... Will President Clinton be able to penetrate the fixed positions of both parties?... In all cases, the participants in Camp David are required to come up with positive results, far from any pressures, especially Israeli ones, because allowing the positions of extremist zionists to affect the summit's agenda will be a major cause of destroying all hopes and propelling the peace process towards a dead end."
BRITAIN: "Camp David Again"
The independent weekly Economist editorialized (7/14): "Deadline after deadline has slipped by since Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, under Bill Clinton's benevolent eye, signed their declaration of peace on the White House lawn in September 1993. But America's electoral calendar is compelling. Mr. Clinton is at the tail-end of his presidential authority. This, above all else, has dictated the timing of the crucial summit between Mr. Clinton, Mr. Arafat and Israel's current prime minister, Ehud Barak, at Camp David, giving it sudden now-or-never urgency. Both Mr. Barak and Mr. Arafat have to be able to leave Camp David declaring victory, or at least seeing it in prospect. Mr. Barak needs a deal that enables Israelis to feel secure from attack, their nation undiminished. Mr. Arafat needs a deal that offers West Bankers and Gazans a respectable-seeming, independent state while not ignoring the concerns of the Palestinian diaspora and the wider Islamic world. Neither leader can get away with less, for neither has the domestic strength of his Camp David predecessors.... But if the end result fails to win widespread West Bank and Gazan backing, the initiative could pass to Palestinian rejectionists. The naysayers, with their violent Islamist elements, will never be satisfied with anything Mr. Arafat can get. The hope is that the rejectionists can be marginalized in the framework of general acceptance. The now-or-never label notwithstanding, the summit could end inconclusively. The stumble towards peace could then continue.
"The Enemy Within"
The liberal Guardian had this op-ed analysis by columnist Jonathan Freedman (7/12): "As Clinton reminded reporters yesterday, Barak's predecessor Yitzhak Rabin would routinely talk peace with only a one-vote majority back home--and make momentous leaps all the same. Barak will have to show similar courage. For in peacemaking, the usual rules of democratic politics do not apply. Leaders have to move ahead of their constituencies--and then persuade their nations to catch up..... History shows that in Northern Ireland, Israel and everywhere else, when people get the chance, they tend to vote for peace."
GERMANY: "Fighting For The Audience"
Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich judged in an editorial (7/14): "Clinton is in a hurry. Next week, he will have to go to Japan for the G-8 summit, and September 13 has already been chosen as the founding date for the new Palestinian state. But there is not much left to negotiate; all possible deals are on the table. What is left to do is 'only' the handshake. Why then this entire production? Because this time around it is not the main protagonists who have to be convinced, but their followers.... And for that to happen it takes the 'show fight' at Camp David. Only then can both Barak and Arafat proclaim that they fought to the end and finally settled on a draw."
"Danger Of Going Too Far"
Right-of-center Badische Nachrichten of Karlsruhe editorialized (7/12): "Without security guarantees from the United States, Israel is not likely to make far-reaching concessions to the Palestinians. However, if Clinton goes too far in granting security guarantees, Washington could find itself--quickly and against its will --being pulled even further into risky Middle East deals. A prospect which pleases neither Americans nor Europeans."
FRANCE: "The Hour Of Choice"
Pierre Beylau in weekly Le Point (7/13): "'Land against peace'--this is the official doctrine of the Israelis for negotiations with the Palestinians. A simple idea for a very complex situation.... Peace is guaranteed not just treaties, but by inspiring a minimum of satisfaction in the hearts of all involved. Behind the closed doors of Camp David, negotiations must reach a watershed. Clinton will need to apply all his abilities so that the whole affair does not tumble into the void."
"Clinton Wants To Believe"
François Sergent wrote in left-of-center Libération (7/12): "For Washington, this summit is obviously a huge risk, but according to the American government, the consequences of inaction would be worse than a failure of the summit itself.... Americans have diplomatic and financial sway over both parties and they can guarantee the security of both peoples, but only Arafat and Barak, weak and criticized as they may be, can make peace work."
ITALY: "Turning Point On East Jerusalem And Palestinian Refugees"
An unsigned dispatch from Thurmont in leading business daily Il Sole 24 Ore held (7/14): "Fully respecting the total silence that Bill Clinton imposed from the very first day of the negotiations...nothing has leaked on the contents of the talks, only a laconic 'they are dealing with the most difficult issues concerning their vital interests' made by Boucher. However, according to some rumors, the two delegations might have reached a turning point on crucial issues. That is on the future status of East Jerusalem...and the destiny of two million refugees."
"Rain Of 'Revelations' On Jerusalem"
Eric Salerno reported from Jerusalem in Rome centrist daily Il Messaggero (7/14): " A rain of 'revelations'. The Camp David summit is hermetically sealed. Clinton imposed a total silence regarding the media.... Even so, 'guesses' are coming from Israeli media and even from the Knesset. Indeed, Barak allows for some leaks in order to sound out public opinion in order to let it know that he is ready to make concessions, and Arafat is expected to do the same.... Faced with uncertainty, demonstrations pro and against Barak continue.... Both groups don't know, however, how much longer the summit might go on. The hypothesis that it would finish
when Clinton leaves for Japan next week seems overcome by events. According to Israeli sources, President Clinton is ready to lock his guests in at Camp David and resume his mediation efforts after the G-8."
"Camp David, Tough Face-to-Face Negotiations Follow Courtesies"
Siegmund Ginzberg speculated from Washington in pro-Ds (leading government party) daily L'Unità (7/13): "As far as mediator Clinton is concerned, all seems to indicate that he started...by twisting...Barak's arm more than Arafat's. This can be deduced from the bad mood of...the Barak advisors who are not at Camp David.... (And) the arm twisting...has gotten some results...although it is separate from Israel's dispute with the Palestinians: Barak informed Clinton that he...wouldn't sell the radar system to China."
BELGIUM: "High Stakes"
Foreign Affairs writer Frank Schlomer analyzed in independent De Morgen (7/12): "For both Barak and Arafat, the stakes are very high and could mean the end of their political career. Barak has almost no government left and hardly a majority in parliament, but if he comes back to Israel with something that is acceptable for the Jewish state, he will then become a political hero. And he could cash in it in the expected elections. Arafat has lost his prestige and is hampered by a corrupt government and the Hamas radicals. But if he can get something out of Camp David, he could turn it to his advantage. However, his demands are so high that a compromise solution which he could sell at home would almost be a miracle. It is thus hard to predict Camp David's outcome, but one thing is sure: if it ends up on a failure, radicals on both sides will prevail again. And in the Middle East, this always means violence."
CZECH REPUBLIC: "Clinton's Last Party"
Miroslav Honsu from centrist Lidove noviny commented (7/12): "Clinton is not paying his army of experts and advisors for any purpose. Their advice at the last moment is: the Middle East. Only once was American diplomacy successful on this hot soil. And this exception was the Egyptian-Israeli peace, stage-managed in American Camp David by former President Carter. Ambition of the new Camp David (starring Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Barak and chief of Palestina Arafat) reaches even higher: to negotiate the foundation of a Palestinian state."
HUNGARY: "What Is To Come Out Of It?"
Senior columnist Endre Aczel lamented in Budapest's leading Nepszabadsag (7/12): "Experts expect that at the end of the eight-day summit an agreement will be reached which can be considered real progress. The question of the day is what brand new ideas does the Clinton administration have and what (apart from money, respect and political support) can it provide to give a boost to the Peace Process. It appears certain that the Clinton administration has such ideas, but they are being kept thus far under a tight seal."
FINLAND: "Peace Prospects Are The Best In A Long Time"
Liberal Hufvudstadsbladet editorialized (7/11): "Israelis and Palestinians as well as all others in the Middle East have the right to be able to plan for a future in peace and security. Possibilities for some kind of an agreement are better now than for a long time. All know that the risks for unrest are great if Palestinians once again feel themselves cheated. Israel can, of course, hope to get an agreement that meets the demands of Israeli opposition parties, but such a treaty would naturally be viewed with great mistrust among the Palestinians. Sustainable peace can only be achieved through an agreement which neither party sees as a letdown."
RUSSIA: "Clinton Can't Lose"
Reformist youth-oriented Moskovskii Komsomolets (7/14) ran this piece by Aleksandr Morozov: "It is clear now that the establishment of a Palestinian state is almost a decided matter. Its borders and the status of Jerusalem are the only bones of contention. To sign a new Camp David accord would mean for the sides to give up their territorial claims, thereby removing the cause of the long-running conflict. Bill Clinton can't lose here. If the summit is a success, he will end up with a Nobel Peace Prize. If not, he will go off with the laurels of a peacemaker after ending years of hostility between the Arabs and the Israelis. His first win came on the second day of the summit, when Israel stated formally that it will not sell the $250,000 Falcon radar to China after all. The deal had been an irritant to the Americans, and it took the Camp David summit to remove it."
SPAIN: "Barak And Peace Called Into Question"
Independent El Mundo commented (7/12): "It does not seem likely that Arafat will accept it all without compensation.... Barak counts on passing a referendum on whichever pact he negotiates...however Israel does not even have legislation concerning the right to call a referendum.... The obstacles to the success of this summit which can be Clinton's international farewell are enormous. President Clinton wants a triumphal farewell in spite of it all."
TURKEY: "Uncle Sam And Peace"
Izzet Sedes wrote in mass appeal/sensational Aksam (7/13): "It is very difficult to see an agreement coming out of the summit. Noting that we should not hope for miracles, the spokesman for the Palestinians is not as optimistic as President Clinton. She also underlined that more meetings would be needed in the future. On the other hand, both Barak and Arafat might consider reaching an agreement if they want to put their names down in history, just like Begin and Sadat. No agreement means a new phase of tension in the Middle East."
"Camp David Is Important For Turkey, As Well"
Sami Kohen wrote in mass appeal Milliyet (7/12): "The most important achievement of the Camp David summit is the meeting itself.... Observers consider this summit as the last chance for resolving the Palestine issue.... It remains to be seen if there will be a happy ending, however. Even the most optimistic are giving it a fifty-fifty chance.... The Camp David summit, whose results will affect the fate of Middle East peace, is also very important for Turkey. Whatever comes out of this summit, it will have an affect on Turkey's foreign policy. If a new conflict erupts in the region, Turkey will find itself in a difficult position vis-a-vis Arab countries because of its strategic relations with Israel.... Camp David will also be a kind of litmus test on whether diplomacy is sufficient enough to resolve disputes."
INDIA: "Camp David Once Again"
An editorial in the centrist Times of India (7/14) stated: "President Clinton is playing a bold hand by trying for a final settlement to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. There is no doubt that both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat want to reach a resolution of the dispute.... The bright side is, that despite significant sections of extremists on both sides, the majority of Palestinians and Israelis know that there is no alternative to compromise. Obviously President Clinton is banking on these imperatives to promote a compromise solution to this dispute that has been going on for over 50 years. And a solution would be good for his image too. The
Clinton years have seen sustained economic growth for the United States and it has become the world's sole superpower. If he pulls off an IsraelI-Palestinian settlement, that would definitely be counted as one of the greatest achievements of U.S. foreign policy."
SRI LANKA: "Camp David Faces Goliath"
Ameen Izzadeen wrote in the independent, popular tabloid Daily Mirror (7/14): "The choice of Camp David, which is likely to inspire and remind Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat of the 1978 landmark, indicates a genuine or desperate attempt by the United States to achieve a breakthrough at the summit.... For both Mr. Barak and Arafat if they compromise too much, the summit is unlikely to reproduce the success of Camp David 1978."
JAPAN: "Barak Driven Into A Tight Corner"
Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri's Jerusalem correspondent Toma opined (7/12): "Neither Israeli Prime Minister Barak nor Palestinian leader Arafat will be able to readily make a far-reaching concession at the trilateral Middle East summit that has just begun at Camp David.... Barak barely survived a non-confidence vote in the Israeli parliament just before leaving for the summit. Palestinian leader Arafat also finds it extremely difficult to make concessions at the summit just before realizing his long-cherished goal of establishing a Palestinian state."
AUSTRALIA: "Danger Signs On The Road To Camp David "
An editorial in the Age read (7/10): "These are turbulent times. Unusual reserves of courage and clear-headedness will be needed if peace is to triumph. Mr Barak is not alone in confronting anger and dissent. So too does the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. Frustrated by repeated delays since Oslo and emboldened by the spectacle of Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, some in Mr. Arafat's ranks are urging him to make a unilateral declaration of statehood, in effect renouncing the quest for a lasting peace.... The Middle East peace negotiations are facing their most perilous hour, and Camp David is the fork in the road. What those opposing the culmination of the peace process must ponder is whether and when such an opportunity will arise again. And, if it doesn't, what will be the miserable consequences for the Israeli and Palestinian people?"
SINGAPORE: "Last Lap In Camp David"
The pro-government Straits Times opined (7/12): "The issues to be thrashed out are complex, each loaded with emotion. The outcome can hardly be expected to be conclusive. But the circumstances under which the meeting has been called encourage a degree of hope. All three men are under varying degrees of time pressure to show results. For President Bill Clinton and Mr. Yasser Arafat, the sands of time are close to the last trickle. In Mr. Clinton's case, it has been repeated ad nauseum that he wants to leave behind a durable legacy before he closes out his eight-year tenure six months from now. His considerable persuasive skills would not suffice. Only a stunning formula to lay aside the security fears of both the Israelis and Palestinians will do.... At this advanced stage of the Palestinians' quest for a homeland, an act of statesmanship by both protagonists is all that stands between hope and more despair. The question of Jerusalem's administrative control will need refining but other core issues--final borders, return of Palestinian refugees, the rights of Jewish settlers on the West Bank--can be settled if there is a willingness to deal. "
SOUTH KOREA: "Clinton's Strategy?"
Cho Kang-soo observed in independent Joong-Ang Ilbo (7/12): "Neither Israel nor Palestine has bent its stance on key issues yet, and it's still possible that the Camp David talks could end as a 'dialogue for the sake of dialogue.' The prospects for resolution are low, and a failed dialogue this time could trigger a violent clash in the region. In some way, a burning arrow has been shot into the region."
CAMEROON: "Smooth Beginning To A Difficult Summit"
The Yaounde-based, bilingual government-owned Cameroon Tribune (7/14) carried commentary in French by foreign page columnist Michel Minka Mayemi: "Determined to repeat the achievement of Camp David I which gave birth to the 1979 peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, U.S. President Bill Clinton...wants an agreement signed between israelis and palestinians before the end of his term at the white house and has called upon them to accept a compromise during the Camp David II summit. That being said, we are forced to acknowledge that things are not going to be easy at all."
"Pastoral Ambiance, Debates Will Be Fierce"
The Yaounde-based, bilingual government-owned Cameroon Tribune carried this commentary in French by foreign news desk chief Ibrahim Karche (7/12): "Ehud Barak, who is now participating in the negotiations at Camp David is considered to be a weakened man at the head of a phantom government.... Before departing for Camp David, he determined the so-called Israeli 'red line'--that a return to 1967 borders is out of question.... The Americans will be presenting their proposals, notably concerning the city of jerusalem. The ambiance at camp david will be pastoral; the debates will be fierce."
CANADA: "Barak And Arafat"
The conservative National Post (7/12) opined: "A slim majority of Israel's population support their Prime Minister's meeting with Yasser Arafat, which began yesterday at Camp David.... But nevertheless, there is a yearning for peace in Israel and a willingness to go to great lengths to secure a settlement with the Palestinians. The country is war weary, and weary too of the precarious, threatened peace that settles upon it during periods of Arab quietude. But the war weariness stems too from a cultural change in Israel, in which traditional Zionism commands less loyalty than it once did.... All this has softened Israel's once-steely defiance of international opinion in the face of external threats, leading to a greater willingness to accommodate Mr. Arafat. But Mr. Arafat's constant duplicity and repeated menaces are so obvious that even an Israeli nation yearning for peace and culturally weakened wonders whether it can strike a worthwhile deal with him."
ARGENTINA: "Cautiousness And Doubts In The Middle East Summit"
Ana Baron, Washington-based correspondent for leading Clarin, observed (7/12): "The situation of both Arafat and Barak is very fragile. Barak arrived at Camp David after having survived a censure motion from the Knesset, while Arafat's popularity has slumped lately. The most important points of disagreement are focused on the future of Jerusalem, the establishment of borders, the fate of Palestinian and Israeli refugees.... Barak would be willing
to grant more local control to the Palestinians in certain areas of Jerusalem which are inhabited by the Arabs, but he does not want to talk about sovereignty.... An expert in the Arab world from the University of Maryland, Shibley Tehami, told Clarin that the Palestinians will likely approve a peace agreement, but Arafat has not yet started to prepare the (Palestinian) public opinion for possible compromise. Joel Singer, an expert on the Arab-Israeli negotiations, said that Barak's domestic standing should not be overestimated because each peace agreement implied the resignation of ministers in the government, but the Israeli people have always supported those agreements."
BRAZIL: "Clinton Trying To Reproduce Camp David's Miracle"
Independent Jornal da Tarde's op-ed page commented (7/12): "Politically weakened by the fact that he is approaching the end of his mandate, President Clinton is trying to reproduce [Carter's] Camp David's miracle. However, the climate is now different, as well as the negotiations agenda. Both Arafat and Barak have come to the negotiation table politically weakened. Arafat is aged and has his importance reduced due to corruption in his administration, in addition to being pressured by growing divergences among his followers.... Barak, who has survived as prime minister with few votes, counts on a precarious majority in the Knesset.... If the current conversations are frustrated, a hot Autumn is expected in the Middle East: Arafat may either be forced to yield to radical groups, or will have to fulfill the promise of proclaiming an independent Palestinian state on September 13."
CUBA: "Summiteers Meet In Weakened Position"
Eduardo Dimas said on Cubavision TV morning news program "Buenos Dias" (7/11): "The Israeli-Palestine summit is being inaugurated today at Camp David and both Middle East leaders are getting there in a weakened position. Barak left a complicated political situation in Israel after facing a threatening parliament--even Foreign Minister Levy refused to accompany him to Washington. On the other hand, Arafat is being charged with corruption by some sectors, and others are opposed to any negotiations with Israel. The Palestinians no longer have solid support from the Arab world.... This is a summit where there has to be concessions. The United Staets is compromised within the Arab world, with Israel is its historical ally. The U.S. goal is to normalize relations between Israel and Palestine--and President Clinton hopes to end his term with peace in the Middle East."
##
