News:

The Sharm Al-Sheikh

meeting started one hour ago. President Mubarak of Egypt had met, so far, repeatedly with

Mr. Ehud Barak, the Prime Minister of Israel and Mr. Arafat, the President of the

Palestinian National Authority. President Mubarak’s early meetings aim at feeling the pulse

of the two leaders on issues that are on the Agenda, namely:

1. Ceasefire
2.

Putting an end to the blockade inflicted on the Palestinians by Israel
3. The

investigation Committee decided by the UN Security Council
4. Devising a

mechanism that will prevent future clashes

The atmosphere, which was already much

tensed, became even more tensed because of Mr. Barak’s declarations of last night. Mr.

Barak stated bluntly that:

1> He considers this peace process to be dead
2>

He does not consider Mr. Arafat a partner in the peace process
3> He will look for

other partners!

MR. BARAK HAS NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO DECIDE THAT THE PEACE PROCESS

IS OVER. THIS IS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE

The Israeli consecutive governments made it

difficult and complicated to establish peace in the Middle East, since they have kept

breaching the agreements signed:
- The Oslo agreement was not implemented by the

Israeli Government
- The Wye River agreement was not implemented by the Israelis
-

The Sharm El Sheikh Accord was not implemented by the Israelis

The reluctance and

the non-compliance of the Israelis with the agreements stem from the Israeli tactics that

are basically to keep the image of a peace making situation while practicing on the ground

the brutal role of the occupation force that insists on keeping its iron fist on the

Palestinians and their land.

The basic point here is that the international

legitimate reference to the peace process is resolutions 242 and 338 of the Un Security

Council. These decisions that were taken thirty three years ago, Israel, as a UN member is

obliged to implement, by withdrawing from the remaining occupied Arab land, namely the

Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel so far rejects the compliance. This

is the crux of the problem in the Middle East.

Complying with UN resolutions is not

a democratic choice.

That is why Iraq is still under siege ten years after the war

waged against it in order to implement the resolution to put an end to its occupation of

Kuwait in 1990.

The USA can not deal with UN Security Council resolutions using two

criteria of measurement. It is the biased attitude of the USA vis-à-vis the Israeli

occupation of Palestine that encourages Israel to insist on the use of force and to act

with the full arrogance of that force.

Barak wants a different partner in peace. It

is not up to Barak to choose the partner he likes for peace the same way Arafat has no

right to choose his partner in negotiations.

Arafat was democratically elected by

his own people the same way Barak was. Also, negotiations take place between two enemies

and not between two sides that like each other. If this was the case, why negotiate?



In any case, if it was at all plausible to choose one’s partner in negotiations, it

is Arafat who should refuse Barak as a partner. After all, it is Barak who is not

implementing the agreements reached or complying with UN resolutions and not Arafat.