The right-wing Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon has been lately making efforts to become a "messenger of peace". He said that the "occupation" of Palestinian lands "is a terrible thing" for both Israelis and Palestinians. He is being perceived as a man who has changed from his earlier hard-line stance to cede Palestinian occupied territory for peace.

On 29 May Sharon met for two and half hours the Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) of the Palestinian Authority for the first time after 31 months of violence to discuss ways and means to implement the ambitious peace plan, a 7-page document known as the road map.

After the meeting Prime Minister Abbas said the meeting was frank and positive. Israel is reported to have agreed to withdraw restrictions on movement of Palestinians in some areas and to transfer security control to the Palestinians in the towns of the West Bank and the Gaza. They also agreed to issue a joint statement on the road map at the Jordan summit. The actions were aimed to show some progress in peace negotiations before they meet President Bush.

The plans of the Road Map

The road map to peace brokered by the Quartet -- the US, European Union, Russia and the UN has three phases:

Phase one: Ending of terror and violence from both sides and Israel withdraws from Palestine areas occupied since September 2000. Both sides issue unequivocal statements guaranteeing the other's right to statehood.

Phase two: An international conference (June-December 2003) to launch peace

negotiations with all parties involved.

Phase three: A second international conference ( 2004-05) to endorse agreements reached on a Palestinian State and launch final status agreements on tricky issues such as dismantling of Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands, status of Jerusalem and return of Palestinian refugees.

On 25 May, Ariel Sharon, persuaded his cabinet to approve the above peace plan. It was approved by 12-7 vote, with 4 abstentions, and with a list of 14 reservations. The reservations included that the Palestinian state would have limited sovereignty and Israel would control over its air space and communications and that Palestinian refugees would not be allowed to return to Israel. Sharon reportedly said after the cabinet meeting: " This was not a simple day. This was not a happy decision."

Why did the hard-liner Sharon agree to the road map?

There are many possible reasons and some of them are enumerated below:

First, Israel was under tremendous pressure from the Bush administration to accept the plan under the changed environment of the Middle East after Iraq's war. The US-Britain unleashed an unprovoked war on Iraq to remove the Saddam Hussein regime that was perceived to pose danger to Israel. Once the regime has gone, Israel is in a difficult position to reject the peace plan. Furthermore Israel receives annually US$ 3 billion in aid from the US and an Israeli request for US$ 10 billion loan has been under consideration by the Bush administration. Sharon can ill afford to defy the wishes of the US.

Second, Sharon may be banking on the Palestinians failing to carry out a pledge to crack down the militants such as Hamas and that will give him excuse to avoid in implementing the plan. Sharon hopes that Palestinians will "blow up" the whole process by carrying out suicide attacks so that he does not have to withdraw Israeli troops from Palestinian areas according to the plan.

Third, Sharon's acceptance shifts responsibility back to Palestinians and he knows that under the oppressive circumstances of the occupation of Palestinian lands, it will be very hard for Palestine Authority to disarm the militant organisation, Hamas because Israel will not first withdraw from Palestinian areas unless violence completely stops. This would hold the peace process hostage to anyone with a bomb or gun. Essentially Israel rejects concept of both sides implementing commitments in parallel. Instead it wants "performance bench-marks" from Palestinians and the right to decide if these have been reached.

Fourth, Israel, strongly supported by the Bush administration, has insisted on reforms of structure of Palestine Authority and thereby marginalisation of role of Chairman Yasser Arafat in peace negotiations because of his alleged complicity in terrorist acts. Sharon and Arafat have long-standing personal feuds and Sharon has been able to diplomatically corner Arafat. Now that the Palestine Authority has undergone reforms and created a post of Prime Minister and Abbas has been appointed in the position, Sharon has no other excuse but to accept the plan and meet the new Palestinian leader Abbas. It also gives signal to the US that Sharon is a "man for peace".

Fifth, the road map does not refer to a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees but calls for a "fair and realistic solution to the refugee issue". The word "realistic" employed in the document may be interpreted to mean that no Palestinian refugee will be able to return to Israel but may receive compensation for loss of lands. It must be borne in mind that Israel is no ordinary state and wants to make it loud and clear that it remains a Jewish one. This means that in no way Jewish population can constitute a minority in Israel. If Palestinian refugees are allowed to return, Israel fears that it will lose its status of Jewish state. The language used in the plan suits Israel.

Sixth, politically Sharon took a shrewd move by accepting the plan. If the right-wing party members abandon him, he might form a broad-based government with his opposition Labour Party. Sharon recently said that the "occupation" by Israel of Palestinian lands had to end and for the first time an Israeli Prime Minister has used the word "occupation". It angered his party members and later he backtracked and chose the words "control of disputed lands". But the fact that Sharon described Israel's long hold of Palestinian lands since 1967 an "occupation" was perceived by many political observers to give other political parties in Israel a strong signal that his earlier hardline policy has changed..

Finally, Sharon is now 78 and it is natural that he wants his name recorded in history as one of the statesmen who has gone an extra mile for peace. His enthusiasm for peace plan could be motivated by the fact that in the past as Defence Minister he allegedly committed crimes against humanity when in 1982 he was responsible for massacres of thousands of Palestinian women and children in refugee camps in Sabra and Chatila in Lebanon. He had to resign as Defence Minister in 1983 after an Israeli judicial enquiry to the incidents. His act of acceptance of the peace plan may remove some of his negative image he has built around his name.

Conclusion

On two critical issues, namely the status of Jerusalem and the right to return of Palestinian refugees, the two sides are sharply opposed to each other. Israel is opposed to allow East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state and rejects the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel.. It appears that incompatibility of objectives of two sides is so strong that one set of goals of one party cannot be achieved without extinguishing the goals of the other party. In such instances, no final peace settlement is possible unless both sides are willing to make compromises on their stance on the issues. It is a pity that the followers of two great monotheist religions have been engaged in senseless violence when both Judaism and Islam profess peace and justice for humankind.

As for the Bush administration, it has moved swiftly to deal with Israeli-Palestinian conflict to show to the Arab world that it is seriously engaged in restoring peace, given the new environment in the Middle East after Iraq war. This will demonstrate to substantiate its claim that the war on Iraq was not against Muslims but to remove an oppressive regime. This is more so at a time the US-British leaders have been placed in an awkward position of misleading their country's men and women because no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found in Iraq, the ground for waging the war.

Meanwhile, the US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the hawkish Jewish figures in the Bush administration, let the cat out of the bag reportedly saying in July issue of Vanity Fair magazine that the US decision to use the existence of WMD in Iraq was taken for "bureaucratic reasons". Furthermore he said that another reason for the ousting of the Saddam Hussein regime was to allow the US to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia, where their presence had long been a major grievance for Islamic militants. It seems that truth has finally come out.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.