[Peace-discuss] What Palestinians should do now

[David Green]

Ali Abunimah will be interviewed on Focus 580, WILL,
Thursday December 9th, 10 a.m.


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. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2001-2004 electronicIntifada.net unless otherwise
noted. Content may represent personal view of author.
This page was printed from the Electronic Intifada
website at electronicIntifada.net. You may freely
e-mail, print out, copy, and redistribute this page
for informational purposes on a non-commercial basis.
To republish content credited to the Electronic
Intifada in online or print publications, please get
in touch via electronicIntifada.net/contact