Mideast needs more intervention from EU

By Ewen MacAskill

LONDON: The Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, warned on Thursday, on a visit to Italy, that the Middle East conflict has reached "the point of tragedy" and that it will have "international repercussions".

Although much given to the use of hyperbole in the past, Arafat's words should be heeded. His sense of foreboding is shared by almost every politician, diplomat, religious leader and journalist returning from the region.

The Islamic fundamentalist group, Hamas, responsible for most of the suicide bombings against Israel, is threatening revenge for the killing on Tuesday of its leader on the West Bank, Jamal Mansour, and his lieutenant in Nablus, Jamal Salim. The risk is high that a suicide bomber, enraged by the events of the past 10 months and especially the assassinations of the last few weeks, will eventually get through.

The Israeli response, after a meeting of its inner cabinet this week, was to resolve to continue targeting Palestinians it suspects of involvement in violence. The Israeli public, according to an opinion poll published this week, overwhelmingly supports this policy of hitting the Palestinian authority hard.

There is a wider worry -- the "international repercussions" mentioned by Arafat. Israel has bombed Syrian military positions twice without response. Syria cannot afford the loss of face involved if it fails to respond to a third Israeli attack. Syria could retaliate directly or by proxy through the Hizbullah group in southern Lebanon.

Fears were expressed this week too that Iraq might try to join in, firing missiles at Israel.

At a time when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached such a juncture, it might be expected there would be a stream of leaders and diplomats to the region, with the White House taking a lead. There should be reports of lengthy phone-calls between the United States, Israel and the Palestinian authority. Throughout the entire eight years that Bill Clinton was president, he was engaged with Israel and the Palestinians.

What has been striking over the past few weeks is the almost total absence of diplomacy. The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, asked on Wednesday by a journalist if George Bush had contacted the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, over the assassination of the Hamas leaders, replied: "I'll have to take a look at the last time the president talked to prime minister Sharon. I don't have the date. He has not talked to him this week."

Bush's reluctance to become involved in the Middle East crisis is mainly because he watched Clinton's involvement over two presidential terms and concluded that it had been a failure. He does not want to be similarly dragged in.

He did send the secretary of state, Colin Powell, to the region in June. The trip was unsuccessful, confirming Bush's determination to limit U.S. involvement as much as possible. The United States, with its traditional support for Israel and with its financial interest in Arab oil, cannot entirely walk away but at no time in the past four decades has it been as detached as at present.

This offers an opportunity for the European Union, one that it has so far failed to seize. EU representatives -- and in particular its special envoy to the region, Miguel Moratinos -- have been desperately trying to become players: if not supplanting the United States, at least taking a bigger part than in the past.

There is no reason why the EU should not be more involved than it has been, apart from Israeli resistance to the EU becoming engaged, seeing it as much too sympathetic to the Palestinians. Israeli opposition should motivate the EU to become more involved.

The EU is the biggest single donor to the Palestinian authority and has substantial trade with Israel. The ending of EU trade agreements favorable to Israel has been raised as a way of putting on pressure. In the short-term, the EU could look more closely at goods coming in from Israel that originated in illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank and Gaza. In the longer term -- though there has been little public support yet whenever the idea is floated -- there could be a boycott of Israeli goods.

The European countries have had one small success so far: in pressing for an international observer force to monitor flashpoints on the West Bank and Gaza, a key demand of the Palestinians that has been rejected by Israel. The U.S., taking its lead from Israel, was initially opposed but is steadily coming round. One of the few positive statements to come out of the Genoa meeting of the Group of Eight, the world's richest nations, was an expression of support for the monitoring force. The U.S. signed up.

An international force would help. The Palestinians would feel that at least they had secured a concession. They want to internationalize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, hoping that an international force would see the Israelis as being the prime aggressors. Some of the most vulnerable Palestinian communities might sleep a little easier if there were international monitors around.

But the monitors would only be a small step. Israel remains opposed and will limit as much as possible the scope of such a force. It regards it almost as an irrelevance that does not address the main areas of conflict.

The EU needs to be much more vocal than it has been so far. A monitoring force is no more than the first stage in implementing the only peace plan around -- that by the former U.S. senator, George Mitchell, which proposes a freeze on Jewish settlements on the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza, in return for Arafat- arrested potential bombers, mainly from Hamas.

The EU has to go further by putting pressure on Israel not only to freeze the illegal Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, but to pull out its settlers altogether. The Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, has already conceded that the settlers should leave Gaza, though he received almost no support for this in cabinet. Most of the settlers on the West Bank will have to go too if there is to be any chance of peace.

The EU -- and Britain in a separate statement -- were unequivocal this week in condemning the Israeli assassinations policy. But again it has to go further, threatening trade sanctions if Israel persists.

Extra-judicial killing provides the Israelis with a false sense of security. There is more danger to Israel of a wave of suicide bombers now than at any time in the last five years.

And Sharon's policy has made it even harder for Arafat to control Hamas. The constant attacks have weakened Arafat while support for Hamas has grown. It will be difficult for Arafat to implement his part of the Mitchell bargain by arresting potential Hamas bombers.

The international community needs to be more forceful in telling Israel to show restraint, for its own good as well as for the Palestinians. The tragedy Arafat warns against may be unstoppable, but the international community should at least be trying a lot harder.

-- Guardian News Service