With the right sort of succession, the Palestinians could benefit from the loss of their hero
Nov 11th 2004
WHEN half the world lauds you as a statesman and the other half vilifies you as a terrorist, you know your passing will be controversial. But as the obituarists do battle over Yasser Arafat, politicians face more pressing business. Churlish though it sounds, the passing from the political scene of the Palestinian leader may be just what is needed to bring the “peace process” in the Middle East back to life.
The reason is simple. Mr Arafat's death on November 11th (see article) removed a man who, like it or not, had remained the unchallenged leader of the Palestinian people. Even the Americans and Israelis acknowledged that he was an irreplaceable symbol. For the past two years, however, neither government would have anything to do with him. Israel accused him of inciting the intifada, organising the very terror attacks which under the Oslo peace accords he had promised to prevent. George Bush expressed “disappointment” with a leader who had failed his own people. Whatever the justice of those allegations, the upshot was that the Palestinians could not do business with either of the countries on whom their hopes of independent statehood most depend.
Now, in principle, they can. For Mr Bush and Ariel Sharon, the animus against Mr Arafat was personal. Though they would not deal with him, neither ruled out talking to the Palestinian Authority. Both the Americans and the European Union had tried over the past two years to bypass the old man by building up his prime ministers. It was only after these efforts failed that Mr Sharon, claiming to have no peace partner, announced that Israel would be compelled to act unilaterally, notably by evacuating all Jewish settlements from the Gaza strip at a time and in a manner of its own choosing.
Time to call some bluffs
In Palestinian minds, Mr Sharon's refusal to talk to their leader has all along been nothing more than a pretext for avoiding a peace that would entail giving up the West Bank as well as Gaza. If so, this is therefore the moment for a new Palestinian leadership, preferably chosen by election, to call Mr Sharon's bluff (see article). Indeed, there are two reasons for thinking that Mr Arafat could hardly have timed his exit better.
The first is that Mr Arafat's exit coincides with the re-entrance of Mr Bush, at a time when Europeans and Arabs alike are imploring him to deliver in his second term the statehood he promised the Palestinians in his first. That is something he could not easily do while continuing to boycott the Palestinians' elected leader. The second is that Mr Arafat died at a time of extraordinary political turmoil inside Israel.
Though supposedly a super-hawk, Mr Sharon's plan to evacuate the Gaza strip has brought him into confrontation with Israel's entire settler movement and split his ruling Likud party. One of the strong arguments the settlers make, which resonates well beyond the settlers' natural supporters, is that his unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is even worse than the land-for-peace formula the right deplores: it is land for no peace. So although most Israelis tell pollsters that they consider it worth their while to pull out of Gaza in order to shorten their lines, they hardly relish the prospect. With Mr Arafat alive, it was assumed, the intifada would still continue.
A Palestinian Authority under new leadership now has an opportunity to alter the entire psychology of the conflict. Some of the Palestinians now thrusting themselves forward, notably Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), a former prime minister now elected as the new chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, have made no secret of their belief that by launching a violent intifada after the failure of Bill Clinton's Camp David summit four years ago, the Palestinians made a calamitous mistake. Apart from the suffering this inflicted on both sides, the intifada destroyed the morale of Israel's peace camp and smashed the electoral prospects of Ehud Barak's Labour Party. The many Israelis who had long supported a historic compromise and a two-state solution felt duped and betrayed. And, like Mr Sharon, they tended to pin the blame on the person of Mr Arafat.
Nobody yet knows what sort of leadership a new set of Palestinian elections will produce. But if it is the pragmatists like Mr Abbas who come to the fore, the peace process can resume in earnest. Better still, it does not have to start back at square one. It can exploit the momentum of Mr Sharon's Gaza withdrawal by connecting this to a pre-existing peace plan, the international “road map” that is designed to lead to an independent Palestine at peace with the Jewish state.
A chance, but not an easy one
The road map has many virtues. It is already written, it has been signed by both sides, and it is approved of not only by the Americans but also by America's partners in the so-called “quartet”: the Russians, the European Union and the United Nations. Two things have been missing: a will to implement it and a clearer sign of the final dimensions of the future Palestine. Mr Bush could fill both gaps by appointing a high-level emissary to drive negotiations forward and by making it plain, as Mr Clinton did, that the Palestinians can expect a state based more or less on the pre-1967 borders (with some negotiated modifications and land-swaps), a share of Jerusalem, but no generalised “right of return” for the refugees of 1948.
However, the very first step is supposed to be a ceasefire. Though the Palestinians claim that it is Israel that undermines every truce, their own side faces the bigger test. What the road map demands is not just a truce but the disarming of the radical factions such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and therefore, in effect, an end to the intifada. Since that is the very step that Mr Arafat seemed unable to take, his successors will not find it easy. On paper, the radical groups claim to believe in a fight to the finish and the destruction of the Jewish state. They may see Mr Arafat's death as a chance to increase their influence. By most accounts, however, the majority of Palestinians, like the majority of Israelis, prefer the peace option. The two peoples on each side of this conflict now face a moment of truth. A great prize awaits if the pragmatists succeed.
Nov 11th 2004
WHEN half the world lauds you as a statesman and the other half vilifies you as a terrorist, you know your passing will be controversial. But as the obituarists do battle over Yasser Arafat, politicians face more pressing business. Churlish though it sounds, the passing from the political scene of the Palestinian leader may be just what is needed to bring the “peace process” in the Middle East back to life.
The reason is simple. Mr Arafat's death on November 11th (see article) removed a man who, like it or not, had remained the unchallenged leader of the Palestinian people. Even the Americans and Israelis acknowledged that he was an irreplaceable symbol. For the past two years, however, neither government would have anything to do with him. Israel accused him of inciting the intifada, organising the very terror attacks which under the Oslo peace accords he had promised to prevent. George Bush expressed “disappointment” with a leader who had failed his own people. Whatever the justice of those allegations, the upshot was that the Palestinians could not do business with either of the countries on whom their hopes of independent statehood most depend.
Now, in principle, they can. For Mr Bush and Ariel Sharon, the animus against Mr Arafat was personal. Though they would not deal with him, neither ruled out talking to the Palestinian Authority. Both the Americans and the European Union had tried over the past two years to bypass the old man by building up his prime ministers. It was only after these efforts failed that Mr Sharon, claiming to have no peace partner, announced that Israel would be compelled to act unilaterally, notably by evacuating all Jewish settlements from the Gaza strip at a time and in a manner of its own choosing.
Time to call some bluffs
In Palestinian minds, Mr Sharon's refusal to talk to their leader has all along been nothing more than a pretext for avoiding a peace that would entail giving up the West Bank as well as Gaza. If so, this is therefore the moment for a new Palestinian leadership, preferably chosen by election, to call Mr Sharon's bluff (see article). Indeed, there are two reasons for thinking that Mr Arafat could hardly have timed his exit better.
The first is that Mr Arafat's exit coincides with the re-entrance of Mr Bush, at a time when Europeans and Arabs alike are imploring him to deliver in his second term the statehood he promised the Palestinians in his first. That is something he could not easily do while continuing to boycott the Palestinians' elected leader. The second is that Mr Arafat died at a time of extraordinary political turmoil inside Israel.
Though supposedly a super-hawk, Mr Sharon's plan to evacuate the Gaza strip has brought him into confrontation with Israel's entire settler movement and split his ruling Likud party. One of the strong arguments the settlers make, which resonates well beyond the settlers' natural supporters, is that his unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is even worse than the land-for-peace formula the right deplores: it is land for no peace. So although most Israelis tell pollsters that they consider it worth their while to pull out of Gaza in order to shorten their lines, they hardly relish the prospect. With Mr Arafat alive, it was assumed, the intifada would still continue.
A Palestinian Authority under new leadership now has an opportunity to alter the entire psychology of the conflict. Some of the Palestinians now thrusting themselves forward, notably Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), a former prime minister now elected as the new chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, have made no secret of their belief that by launching a violent intifada after the failure of Bill Clinton's Camp David summit four years ago, the Palestinians made a calamitous mistake. Apart from the suffering this inflicted on both sides, the intifada destroyed the morale of Israel's peace camp and smashed the electoral prospects of Ehud Barak's Labour Party. The many Israelis who had long supported a historic compromise and a two-state solution felt duped and betrayed. And, like Mr Sharon, they tended to pin the blame on the person of Mr Arafat.
Nobody yet knows what sort of leadership a new set of Palestinian elections will produce. But if it is the pragmatists like Mr Abbas who come to the fore, the peace process can resume in earnest. Better still, it does not have to start back at square one. It can exploit the momentum of Mr Sharon's Gaza withdrawal by connecting this to a pre-existing peace plan, the international “road map” that is designed to lead to an independent Palestine at peace with the Jewish state.
A chance, but not an easy one
The road map has many virtues. It is already written, it has been signed by both sides, and it is approved of not only by the Americans but also by America's partners in the so-called “quartet”: the Russians, the European Union and the United Nations. Two things have been missing: a will to implement it and a clearer sign of the final dimensions of the future Palestine. Mr Bush could fill both gaps by appointing a high-level emissary to drive negotiations forward and by making it plain, as Mr Clinton did, that the Palestinians can expect a state based more or less on the pre-1967 borders (with some negotiated modifications and land-swaps), a share of Jerusalem, but no generalised “right of return” for the refugees of 1948.
However, the very first step is supposed to be a ceasefire. Though the Palestinians claim that it is Israel that undermines every truce, their own side faces the bigger test. What the road map demands is not just a truce but the disarming of the radical factions such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and therefore, in effect, an end to the intifada. Since that is the very step that Mr Arafat seemed unable to take, his successors will not find it easy. On paper, the radical groups claim to believe in a fight to the finish and the destruction of the Jewish state. They may see Mr Arafat's death as a chance to increase their influence. By most accounts, however, the majority of Palestinians, like the majority of Israelis, prefer the peace option. The two peoples on each side of this conflict now face a moment of truth. A great prize awaits if the pragmatists succeed.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق