The Next Crisis 

By Moshe Zak 
Jerusalem Post 

(October 30) - Even after yesterday's Hamas terrorist
  attack near Kfar Darom, it is doubtful whether Yasser
  Arafat will be able to fulfill his obligation to outlaw
  the terrorist organization as promised in the Wye
  agreement. It states: "the Palestinian side will inform
  the US fully of the actions it has taken to outlaw all
  organizations (or wings of organizations, as
  appropriate) of a military, terrorist or violent
  character and their support structure, and to prevent
  them from operating in areas under its jurisdiction."

  In the Wye negotiations, the Palestinians rejected
  Israel's demand to include a clause on the war against
  terrorism in the work plan that they are supposed to
  submit within 10 days as a sign of the beginning of the
  implementation of the agreement. They claimed that at
  most they are willing to consider making the military
  arm of the Hamas illegal, but not the organization as a
  whole.

  But now even this is in doubt, just as it is as yet
  unclear whether they will pass laws against incitement
  to violence, as specified in the agreement: "The
  Palestinian side will issue a decree prohibiting all
  forms of incitement to violence or terror. This decree
  will be comparable to the existing Israeli legislation
  which deals with the same subject."

  Even after Arafat's unambiguous reference to legislation
  similar to that in Israel, his aides will be able to
  claim that he signed this clause without examining it in
  detail - because his command of English is limited.

  Exactly this claim was made by Mohammed Rashid in an
  affidavit submitted to a New York court in response to a
  claim filed against the Palestinian Authority for breach
  of its contract with an American company concerning the
  supply of oil. Arafat signed the contract and the
  American company is claiming $18.7 million damages.

  To make it easier for the PA to act against terrorism,
  Israel agreed - with no justification whatever - to the
  "even-handedness" game between "Palestinian terrorism"
  and "Israeli terrorism."

  The agreement states: "The Palestinian side agreed to
  take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of
  terrorism, crime, and hostilities directed against the
  Israeli side, against individuals falling under the
  Israeli side's authority and against their property,
  just as the Israeli side agreed to take all measures
  necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime,
  and hostilities against Palestinians and against their
  property. The two sides also agree to take legal
  measures... within their jurisdiction and to prevent
  incitement against each other by any organizations,
  groups, or individuals within their jurisdiction."

  The Hebron Agreement was accompanied by a memo, written
  by Dennis Ross with the approval of Binyamin Netanyahu
  and Yasser Arafat, on what the Palestinians were
  required to do to combat terrorism, without any
  reservations. They were obliged inter alia to reduce the
  Palestinian Police force and to confiscate all illegal
  arms. Now, 17 months later, not only has the shekel been
  devalued, Palestinian commitments have also been
  devalued, and Israel has to bear the mark of shame on
  its forehead, saying that terrorism is part of its
  political and social scene. Anything to avoid
  embarrassing the Palestinians.

  This isn't just a question of honor - not to speak
  lightly of honor.

  This balance between Israel and the Palestinians grants
  the CIA "judges" a basis for even-handedness between a
  mass Palestinian attack and a wild act by an insane
  Israeli.

  The linkage between Israeli withdrawal and a parallel
  step by the Palestinians is formulated in Secretary of
  State Madeleine Albright's letter to Netanyahu: "We
  believe its parallel phased approach will help provide
  greater confidence to both sides in the implementation
  process, since actions in each stage of the time line
  are to be completed by both sides before moving to the
  next stage."

  This is a vague formulation that doesn't exactly
  correspond to what was said orally to Netanyahu at the
  Wye talks. It doesn't imply Israel's unchallenged right
  to break off the withdrawal if the PA doesn't fulfill
  its commitments in the war against terrorism. The
  annoying comparison between Israeli and Palestinian
  terrorism is liable to grant the PA more justifications
  for wriggling out of its promises.

  There is indeed a high probability that this will be one
  of the points of dispute between Israel and the
  Palestinians over the next 12 weeks. But it won't be a
  subject for heated argument. The fiercest crisis will
  break out over the settlements. The agreement doesn't
  contain one word on the question of the settlements.

  Israel didn't agree to even-handedness between
  construction in the settlements and a unilateral
  declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state.
  The Americans and the Palestinians didn't request a
  total stop to construction by Jews and Arabs alike in
  Judea and Samaria. They limited it only to Jewish
  building. Netanyahu couldn't have made such a
  commitment, which means discriminating against the
  Israeli settlers without endangering cabinet approval of
  the agreement.

  This is why he returned to the formula that in the next
  three months no new settlements will be established, but
  it's impossible to freeze existing settlements and not
  build new houses as required.

  Palestinian pressure on this question resulted in the
  "constructive ambiguity" solution: The issue would be
  dealt with in an American statement after the summit.

  And in a statement by the State Department this week, it
  was said that the US requests that both sides refrain
  from unilateral actions during the negotiating period.
  The Palestinians apparently received an oral American
  promise that this call referred also to the settlements,
  while the Israelis were promised that it was addressed
  to Arafat's planned declaration of a Palestinian state.

  One may assume that the Palestinians will raise an
  outcry at any building in the settlements. If this
  outcry is echoed in Israel, it is liable to develop into
  a severe crisis, and possibly even cause the shelving of
  the implementation of the agreement.

  If the PA discovers that its demand for a settlement
  freeze doesn't meet with much public support in Israel,
  the agreement will limp on to the completion of the
  second withdrawal.