Palestine - window or pinhole?

Dec.1, 2004
Peace in Palestine:A window or a pinhole?


PV Vivekanand
THE death of Yasser Arafat last month is touted as having cleared the way for the resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as if Arafat was blocking the talks. Indeed, that is the picture Israel had been trying to portray, but the realities on the ground are different. The "opportunity" for peace, as defined by the US, Europe and others, could be dashed as quickly as it emerged if Israel is not ready to drop its arrogance and intransigence and does not do what it takes to consolidate it. But is there a genuine political will in Israel to do that?
IT was an almost a foregone conclusion that Mahmoud Abbas, who inherited the chairmanship of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from Yasser Arafat, would also be elected Palestinian president in January elections until it was reported on Wednesday that Marwan Barghouti has registered himself as a candidate.
Abbas's chance would be seriously set back if Barghouti's name appears on the ballot paper. His wife filed the registration on his behalf.
Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison, had already acquired more than the 5,000 signatures necessary to put his name on the ballot.
Palestinian officials said last week that Barghouti, who enjoys immense popularity among young Palestinians, had decided to run. But he opted to drop his candidacy a day later after coming under pressure from Fatah officials worried about a split in their movement.
If Barghouti does indeed enter the fray, things would change dramatically and throw new elements to any assessment. For the moment, let us go with the assumption that Abbas is the front-runner in the elections.
However, the elections in themselves are not an end to anything. They will only signal the beginning of efforts to work out a negotiated settlement for the Palestinian problem.
That is where the biggest questions pose themselves.
Is there any good faith left on the Israeli side that would help the negotiations arrive at a just and fair solution?
Or will it be a one-sided negotiation where Israel and the US would be bent upon forcing down the Palestinian throat their version of peace that have little to do with the legitimate territorial and political rights of the Palestinian people?
Is it possible for Abbas to settle for less than what Arafat had held out throughout the years? Is that what Israel and the US describe as the "opening" for peace in Palestine now that Arafat has become part of history?
Is it possible for the European Union to make good its promise to ensure that fairness, justice and international legitimacy would be the guiding factors for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement?
Is the European Union ready to detach itself away from the US-imposed shackles and assume an influential political role in the peace process?
Why do Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, and George W Bush, the American president, see "new hope" to negotiate "peace" with the Palestinians?
The answer might perhaps lie in the role that Abbas played in working out a secret agreement involving compromises on final status issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and the character of the proposed State of Palestine.
This agreement, which Abbas and the then Israeli justice minister, Yossi Beilin, drew up in October 1995, is seen as the basis for all consecutive proposals, including the American-mediated offer made to Arafat during the Camp David negotiations of 2000 and the subsequent "Geneva Initiative."
The agreement also offers a compromise to allow some 120 to 130 Jewish settlements to remain in the West Bank and an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley.
Abbas was also seen as ready to compromise on the demand for Arab East Jerusalem and settle for the Abu Dis neighourhood on the outskirts of the Holy City.
Commentators also note that Abbas is a vehement opponent on armed resistance against the Israeli occupation - another "plus point" that makes him acceptable to Sharon and Bush.
He has indicated that he is ready to take action against the groups waging armed struggle. "Every nation has opposition groups, but there are also laws and institutions," he said. "I am committed to having one authority and only one army and political pluralism."
The rival groups might not see it that way.
Sharon has pledged to help ease the situation in the occupied territories to make it conducive for the elections, including allowing occupied Arab East Jerusalemites to vote. However, it is not clear yet whether he would allow polling centres in Arab East Jerusalem, which Israel considers as part of its "eternal and indivisible capital."
Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath put his finger on the pulse when he said Israeli promises must be matched now by action on the ground.
Speaking at a meeting with the EU foreign affairs chief, Javier Solana, which was also attended by foreign ministers also drawn from Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey as well as Israel, Shaath said the post-Arafat leadership faced "absolutely daunting but absolutely necessary" challenges.
"There is optimism all around regarding this new drive to get the peace process back on line," he said.
However, he affirmed, "time is short" if the Palestinians are to get the ingredients in place for a successful election.
"Really if Israel were to act in good faith, and I hope it will, Israel should immediately allow the reopening of the voter registration offices in (Arab East) Jerusalem," Shaath said.
Israel should also pullout of all towns occupied since the start of the current Palestinian Intifada in 2000, end "assassinations, violence (and) incursions" and lift "checkpoints and things that make life absolutely impossible if you are going to conduct an election."
The EU has promised all help for the Palestinian elections and thereafter for building a Palestinian people.
The task ahead was underlined by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer when he said the Palestinian election represented a "new opportunity" for Middle East peace, but "whether it could be used is an open question.
Indeed, it is as if Sharon and Bush could not wait to have Abbas in the hot seat of Palestinian presidency and extract concession after concession from him.
At the same time, the danger remains very much in view that Sharon might decide Abbas, if the Palestinian leader refused to accept the Israeli version of a peace agreement, is demanding too much and denounce him as a negotiating partner as he did with Arafat.
It needs no visionary powers to foresee that any sign of Abbas relenting to pressure on the basis of American-Israeli interpretations of what he accepted in the 1995 agreement would lead to an upheaval among the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Abbas has made it clear that he will be basis himself on the Quartet-backed "road map" for peace that envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state through internationally backed negotiations. It called for the establishment of an independent state next year, but has been stalled since it was signed in June 2003.
After his re-election US President George Bush spoke of pushing for a Palestinian state in the next four years.
However, Sharon has made his acceptance of the "road map" proposal conditional on its backers — the UN, the US, the European Union and Russia — accepting Israeli-proposed amendments to it. This would prove to be a major hurdle as and when negotiations get ahead.
The quartet has already met and discussed options.
“We are all encouraged. We reaffirmed our determination to work with the Palestinian leadership to support the election” for a successor to Arafat, UN chief Kofi Annan said after a meeting in Sharm Al Sheikh, Egypt, last week.
“We must give them all the necessary support. There is an opportunity to ... move ahead with the road map.”
US Secretary of State Colin Powell reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to the blue print as the only peace plan on the table.
“The road map now is... the single plan that is being used by both parties as well as the international community to achieve a two-state settlement,” he said.
Palestinian sources said they expected the Americans to guarantee an Israeli withdrawal from all the main West Bank towns during the election period.
Powell has reassured the Palestinian officials that the US did not consider the Israeli proposed withdrawal from Gaza as a replacement for the road map.
For the moment, Sharon has promised to co-ordinate the planned Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). If he lives up to the pledge, then it could strengthen Abbas's hand against the potential challenge posed by Islamist groups which want the Gaza Strip under their control.
On the other hand, Sharon has the luxury of simply withdrawing the military and Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip and sit back and watch PNA forces and rivals vying for domination of the coastal strip.
Egypt has stepped into the equation by promising to deploy additional troops along its volatile border with Gaza to help ensure quiet after the pullout.
Such deployment requires in the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement signed in Camp David in 1978, which limits the Egyptian military presence in the area.
The Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, which is vying for Palestinian hearts and minds in direct competition with the PLO, has announced it will boycott the elections.
A Hamas boycott could raise questions about the credibility and legitimacy of the elections. However, Hamas leader Ismail Hanieh made it clear the group would honor the outcome of the elections.
Hanieh said the group was not calling on the Palestinian people to boycott the election, but Hamas members will stay away from the polls.
Hamas has tens of thousands of supporters and is particularly strong in the Gaza Strip, but there is no accurate estimate of its actual members.
Hamas took the decision since the presidential election is not coupled with polls to the legislative assembly and municipal councils. Legislative elections could be held in May.
Hamas is expected to do well in the legislative and municipal elections whenever held.
Hamas stayed away from the first Palestinian general election in 1996 because it was a result of the Oslo agreements with Israel which the group rejects.
Earlier, Hamas politburo member Mohammed Ghazal had said the group might run in the presidential elections in January by nominating a candidate or supporting a certain runner if it serves best the interests of the Palestinian people.
“Everything is expected in politics. The movement would nominate a candidate to run for Palestinian National Authority’s president if it is in the public interest,” Ghazal said.
However, Ghazal reiterated Hamas’ position that called for holding presidential, parliamentary and municipal elections.
Fateh got a big boost in elections this week to the student council of the Al Najah University the West Bank.
The Hamas-led Islamic bloc lost significant ground from the 48 seats it had held since the last student election in 2001. It was also the first victory for Fateh since it lost a majority in a close race in 1995 when Hamas gained ground.
Al Najah is the West Bank's largest university and is often cited as a barometer of political sentiment among young Palestinians.
Indeed, the election could be seen as a sympathy vote: Arafat's death may have tipped the vote in favour of Fateh as a tribute to the man who for decades led the Palestinian struggle for statehood.
"Nobody expected this huge victory for Fateh, not even Fateh itself," political science professor Nayef Abu Khalaf said.
"We feel there are several factors. One is the death of Arafat, the emotional factor. Definitely it had an effect."
Negating all hopes expressed by the US, the West, Arabs, Palestinians and all others is an assumption by Israeli peace activist Uri Avneri, who argues that Sharon is only interested in reacting and adjusting himself to developments and has no intention of making peace based on Palestinian rights.
According to Avneri, Sharon's determined campaign to portray Arafat as the main obstacle to peace was aimed averting the need to engage the Palestinians in negotiations. Now that Arafat is gone, Sharon's bluff is called but it is only a matter of time before the Israeli prime minister would throw a spanner in the works for peace, says Avneri.
"Contrary to all Israeli predictions, the Palestinian transfer of power has taken place in an orderly manner, much as in any civilised country," writes Avneri. "Within two months, new elections are to take place.
"That puts Sharon on the spot. He cannot object to elections, since they are the apple of Bush’s eye. He must not raise the slightest suspicion that he is undermining them. Any complaint about the Israeli army hindering elections by incursions, roadblocks and 'targeted assassinations' may arouse the ire of the White House.
According to Avneri, "Sharon is hoping that the Palestinians will sabotage their elections themselves." However, so far the process has gone ahead well, and Bush, driven by his self-declared goal of "democracy" in the Middle East would support Abbas, thus undermining Sharon's plans, he says.
Therefore Sharon will put up a different face in public while he tries to undermine all chances of peace, according to Avneri.
"Sharon will do everything he can to destroy" Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen, before the American muster enough pressure on Israel to start negotiations.
"Let no one have any illusions: Sharon will use every means, overt and covert, in order to destroy any 'moderate' Palestinian leadership," Avneri writes. "His natural ally is Hamas, which opposes any negotiations with Israel. As of now, Abu Mazen is enemy number one."
As the powers that be play politics, the Palestinian people continue to suffer.
A World Bank report released in late November said the Palestinian economy remains stagnant and nearly half of all Palestinians live in poverty.
The report – Intifada, Closures and Palestinian Economic Crisis: An Assessment – noted that as many as 600,000 Palestinians cannot afford to meet their basic needs in food, clothing and shelter to survive, sets the unemployment rate in 2003 at 25 per cent and 37 among young people and the poverty rate at 47 per cent. It attributes the situation mainly to the Israeli-imposed closures in occupied territories.
“Closures are a key factor behind today’s economic crisis in the West Bank. They have fragmented Palestinian economic space, raised the cost of doing business and eliminated the predictability needed to conduct business.”
Add to that the Israeli policy of collective punishment.
The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem reports that in the past four years 628 housing units, home to 3,983 people, were demolished by the Israeli army ostensibly because of the actions of 333 Palestinians. Forty-seven per cent of the houses demolished were not home to anyone suspected of involvement in attacks on Israelis, and in less than three per cent of cases were occupants given prior notice.
The world could only hope that the "changed" situation would offer them the chance for liberation and life in dignity, but those who really pull the strings are the Israelis and the Americans, and then the Israelis again in that order.
Hopes are indeed high in the post-Arafat era, but they seem fragile when seen in the light of the political realities. The "window" of opportunity for peace could easily turn out to be a pinhole that could be sealed off anytime.