Settle Mideast conflict legally

Leonid Sukiainen, Institute of State and Law, RAS, RIA Novosti, Moscow

The developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict show that the sides are relying on force. Both sides are responsible for bloodshed. Israel will not attain its goals through military operations designed to intimidate terrorists.

First, practice shows that fighters do not take fright easily. Second, despite official statements attempts are being made to scare not only terrorists but also the whole of the Palestinian people. And third, intimidation is the main weapon of terrorism and by using intimidation the Israeli cabinet is gaining the ill fame of a terrorist government.

These actions remind one of U.S. policy after Sept. 11, which is based on the illusory hope of defeating terrorism without getting at the root of this phenomenon. Unless positive changes are made in the solution of acute problems of peace and land in the Middle East, the number of suicide Palestinian terrorists will not diminish and the infrastructure of terrorism will rise from ashes, no matter what fatal strikes it is subjected to.

Palestinian leaders should also abandon their illusions and remember that the world community took up the Palestinian cause not so much under the impression of the intifada of the 1980s but mostly because the leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization dropped their call for the liquidation of the Israeli state.

By the way, both Egypt and Jordan gained more from a legal settlement of relations with Israel than from military conflicts with it. Likewise, Israel ensured its security by signing peace treaties with these countries more firmly than it ever did this before by using force.

Consequently, the main condition for settlement is the active involvement of the potential of international law in the process. Although Palestinians and Israelis continue to say that international law could not resolve their problems, it is not the law that is to blame but the sides' unwillingness or inability to abide by law for political considerations.

The fundamental UN Security Council resolutions on the Middle East, the 1991 Madrid accords and the 1993 Palestinian-Israeli agreement include provisions that pave the way to a legal settlement of the conflict on the basis of compromise.

If the sides respect the letter and the spirit of these documents, their movement towards each other and mutual compromises will surely ensure a peaceful coexistence of the two states within the generally recognized and safe borders.

All permanent members of the UN Security Council and the world community as a whole share this view. The demarcation of these borders will be the task of the conflict participants themselves. They will most probably need to exchange territories. But however paradoxical it may sound, it would be in the interests of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to do their best to strengthen the effectiveness of the "adversary-partner."

It is apparent that Yasser Arafat would not be able to establish control over the situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as long as the Palestinian Authority remains unbalanced and unable to develop into a power structure in terms of the economy and military might. Israel would hardly soften its policy when its statehood, especially in terms of security of its citizens, is being undermined.

And one more thing: The experience of Middle Eastern settlements shows that a real and lasting settlement can be attained only at the negotiating table. But to launch negotiations the sides must cease fire and stop violence; Palestinian terrorists must be stopped and Israeli troops must be pulled out of Palestinian cities.

Maybe a group of observers from third countries or international disengagement forces should be deployed at the engagement line. All these conditions are stipulated in the Tenet-Mitchell scheme formalized in the recent UN Security Council resolutions.

Russia, a co-sponsor in the Middle East peace process, and the EU, which is mediating in an attempt to build bridges between Israelis and Palestinians, are not embarrassed by the American origin of the plan. The reason for this is simple: The nationality of the initiator of a peace mechanism does not matter if the suggested mechanism is based on the principles and norms of international law.

This is creating better prerequisites for external support of the peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, it is the conflicting sides who will have to come to agreement, which is possible only on the basis of law.