[News] What Palestinians should do now

Fri Nov 19 09:01:08 EST 2004

Opinion/Editorial
What Palestinians should do now
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 18 November 2004

----------

The first priority for Palestinian leaders now must be to defend their 
people against Israel's relentless colonization and violence and not to 
negotiate with Israeli guns to Palestinian heads. They must formulate a 
national strategy to regain Palestinian rights enshrined in UN Resolutions, 
clearly explain this strategy, and organize Palestinians and allies 
everywhere to struggle for it, starting with full implementation of the ICJ 
decision on the West Bank wall. Palestinians should seek to emulate the 
success of the African National Congress that freed South Africans from 
apartheid by confronting and defeating injustice, not seeking to 
accommodate it.

If the PLO and the Palestinian Authority (PA) can transform themselves to 
take on this role, they deserve the support of every Palestinian. If, 
however, they plan to continue as they have before, they must dissolve. As 
constituted by the Oslo accords, the Palestinian Authority harms 
Palestinian interests, because it obscures Israel's responsibility as the 
occupying power without providing any minimal protection for the people 
against Israel's continuous onslaught. Its existence has allowed the 
spurious agenda of "reform" to trump Israel's obligations under the Geneva 
Conventions and UN resolutions. Palestinian leaders should no longer accept 
the responsibility for governing Palestinians on behalf of the occupying 
power. Israel should bear the full cost of its choices.

Yet the conventional wisdom says that Yasir Arafat's death provides an 
opportunity to revive the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Realities such 
as Israel's refusal in word and deed to withdraw and allow the 
establishment of a genuine Palestinian state in the occupied territories 
have simply been ignored. Dov Weissglas, the most senior advisor to Israeli 
premier Ariel Sharon, explained in early October that Israel's Gaza 
"disengagement" plan, which has been embraced by the bankrupt international 
peace process industry, is actually a ruse to kill--not advance--any peace 
process. Weissglas said, "when you freeze that [peace] process, you prevent 
the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on 
the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package 
called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed 
indefinitely from our agenda."

Logically, therefore, any "opportunity" for peace through the establishment 
of a Palestinian state depends either on a clear change of Israeli policy 
or a clear willingness by the United States and the international community 
to force Israel to change its policy. So far, the only policy announcement 
to come from Israel is that it plans a posthumous "anti-Arafat crusade" in 
the media.

President Bush has has already shattered hopes that in a second term, freed 
from re-election concerns, he might pressure Israel. At his November 12 
press conference with UK prime minister Tony Blair, Bush was asked if 
Israel should at last implement a freeze on West Bank settlement expansion. 
He side-stepped the question, placing the entire burden on the 
Palestinians: "I believe that the responsibility for peace is going to rest 
with the Palestinian people's desire to build a democracy and Israel's 
willingness to help them build a democracy." Bush also stated that peace 
"can be reached by only one path, the path of democracy, reform and the 
rule of law." There is no sign yet that the EU or Arab states intend to 
challenge his approach.

Yet at the same time, Bush and Blair declared support for elections in the 
occupied territories -- a position seemingly in tune with Palestinian 
aspirations. But elections present both dangers and opportunities.

At a minimum, fair elections require international intervention to protect 
the Palestinians from the occupier and ensure all candidates have fair 
access to PA-controlled media and are free from intimidation whether by 
Israel or the PA. The danger is that snap elections in the West Bank and 
Gaza, under Israel's crushing rule, will offer no fair opportunity for new 
Palestinian leaders with new strategies to emerge. Elections must provide a 
genuine contest and not be mere plebiscites confirming the post-Arafat 
appointments of failed old guard figures like PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas 
and Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and their backers who control the PA 
apparatus with money and guns. Ominously, The New York Times reports that 
Israel, under American pressure, has already released $40 million in 
blocked PA funds to "strengthen the position" of the old guard.

In the best case, from Israel's perspective, the old guard confirmed in 
place by flawed elections would continue to offer disastrous concessions as 
they did throughout the Oslo period. And at worst, they would simply become 
new scapegoats to whom Israel and the US will deliver impossible demands 
and then heap blame when they are inevitably unfulfilled. Palestinian 
leaders must no longer accept this assigned role.

Palestinians should also demand elections in the diaspora as well the 
occupied territories. Arguably Arafat's greatest mistake is that after 
signing the Oslo accords, he abandoned the PLO's base in exile. Millions of 
Palestinians were disenfranchised and the negotiating position of the 
Palestinian leadership severely weakened because it could not claim that it 
had to refer any agreement back to its people.

Assistance from the United Nations and host countries would be essential to 
successful diaspora elections. The recent Afghan election, in which 740,000 
refugees in Pakistan voted, proves it can be done. Currently, almost four 
million Palestine refugees are registered with UNRWA. All exiled 
Palestinians should have the right to vote and be elected to a Palestinian 
national assembly with the sole authority to approve any future peace 
agreement.

This would be in the best interests of Palestinians because it would 
strengthen and hold accountable any eventual Palestinian negotiating body 
by ensuring it accepts no deal which compromises basic rights, particularly 
the rights of refugees. This is exactly why such elections would be 
strongly opposed by Israel, the United States, the EU, and the Palestinian 
old guard.

But now is the time for Palestinians to set their own agenda, to build a 
new movement, and to see who among their self-declared allies really has 
their freedom, democracy and rights at heart.

Ali Abunimah is a co-founder of The Electronic Intifada.

The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org
Opinion/Editorial
What Palestinians should do now
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 18 November 2004

----------