Leaders must obey “˜road map’ rules for peace

As of Monday, both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen)
have wisely agreed to the implementation of the U.S. “road
map” for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Despite the expected controversy, the plan represents the best
chance for a rapid, peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.

Intended to serve as a framework for action, the plan takes into
account current issues such as checkpoints, military occupation and
terrorism. It directs the two sides to immediately restore
pre-intifada conditions on the ground and then rapidly progress to
final negotiations resulting in a sovereign Palestinian nation. The
plan’s comprehensive yet flexible design must lead to active
negotiation.

Specific goals included in the plan are a freeze on Israeli
settlements, withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian towns,
no further demolitions of suspected terrorist infrastructure
buildings, Palestinian democratic reforms, Palestinian-initiated
counter-terrorism actions, and Palestinian security
deployments.

Sharon’s cabinet did not agree to the plan without
reservations. Ministers voted to include 14 conditions for the
plan’s implementation.

Even if the Palestinians accept these conditions, other problems
could potentially destroy the plan. For the Israelis, any security
reorganization means trusting Abbas’ desire and ability to
stop terrorist attacks. For the Palestinians, stopping violence
requires trusting Sharon’s government to restrain settlers
and limit military interventions. In the worst case scenario, the
failure of this plan would escalate violence ““ as happened in
September 2000 due to the failure of the Camp David Summit.

To avoid such a breakdown, both sides have an obligation to give
the plan a chance. And, while doing so, both sides must also think
in practical political terms.

Palestinians must realize they have no choice but to accept what
the plan calls a “realistic solution” to the problem of
right of return for refugees. One of the Israeli conditions seizes
the plan’s vague language on this point to argue Palestinians
have no right of return. Given the plan’s precarious nature,
Palestinians must accept this demand in order to commence
negotiations.

Likewise, Israelis must agree to freeze settlement activity in
Palestinian land seized as result of the 1967 Six-Day War. Also,
the settlements must be rolled back to lines Sharon and Abbas must
agree upon. Sharon must not cater to the interests of more
conservative settlers when drawing these lines.

Additionally, the plan mandates official statements from Sharon
affirming the eventual creation of a sovereign Palestinian state
and from Abbas proclaiming Israel’s right to exist and an end
to terrorism. Israelis and Palestinians need to see that their
leaders are committed to achieving peace.

On the ground, the plan will not immediately stop violence.
People should not rashly declare the effort a failure if violence
does occur in coming weeks. Considering the stakes, people on both
sides must channel their emotional reactions and focus on practical
considerations.

The United States’ plan certainly does not aim to solve
all problems at once ““ the conflict is far too complicated.
At the moment, the plan stands as the most viable option for peace.
Israelis and Palestinians must be committed to carrying it out.