|
Most of the blame for this goes to the PA, although the Sharon government does not escape unscathed.
First of all, let's try to envision a Palestine (which exists, even if there is no Palestinian state) without Arafat. For better or worse, he has been such an entrenched symbol of Palestinian nationalism for decades that it is difficult to imagine the scene after he take his final exit. Yet Arafat has really been relevant only as a symbol for since the collapse of the Oslo process. He continues to hold the reins of government in the PA, which means he controls the funding. As we know, not all the money that flows into the PA goes where it is supposed to go. Arafat isn't giving up the PA as long as he can skim some funds for his private use. This is a man in his seventies who is rumored to be in poor health acting like he can take it with him.
Arafat's new irrelevance has left a power vacuum even without his departure. The fact that he is still there complicates matters, since as long as he is present he will tolerate no challenge to his authority over the PA. That doesn't keep the question of who shall govern the Palestinian people from being asked.
Like most things in the Arab world, the question of who shall govern Palestine presents a Hobson's choice. There are progressive Palestinians such as Hanan Ashwari, Yasser Abed Rabbo, Dr. Mufstafa Barghouti and Professor Sari Nusseibeh. These are the kind of people who will lead Palestine into a secular, progressive and democratic society. Good policy toward the territories should be to advance the credibility of those just named. As it is, these people are irrelevant because they have little popular support.
Unfortunately, these people are overwhelmed by the PA and the right wing militants. This is partly due to Sharon's intransigence. Sharon has been acting as if there should be no Palestinian authority other than Israeli occupation. Perhaps this is because he believed that a Greater Israel was possible, which is to say that he believed that Palestinian nationalism is something that could be broken by force. In this, he was and continues to be just fundamentally wrong.
To put it another way, the problem is that Sharon, the leader of the Likud Party and what passes for a pragmatic voice of the Israeli right wing, has had a different answer to who shall govern the Palestinian people. He thinks the Israelis should. Sharon has tried to buy time by signing onto weak agreements like the Road Map. The Road Map produced a set of circumstances where Sharon and Arafat could agree on something: the desire that it fail. Sharon really didn't want any Palestinian prime minister to succeed and Arafat didn't want a Palestinian prime minister instituted to challenge his authority. The Road Map led to a dead end.
The idea that Israeli occupation can continue indefinitely and that Israelis will meet little or no resistance if they continue to uproot Palestinian villages and farms to make way for Jewish-only housing accessed by roads on which Palestinians are prohibited from using is nonsense. The best Palestinians can hope for in this vision of the future is to be put on reservations; that they will resist this future in one way or another is natural. It is incredible that any intelligent or sane person would think for a moment that such an arrangement as the Likudists and their allies envision is even possible. However, we are not talking about intelligent or sane people; we are talking about right wingers. That such nonsense is possible is a right wing article of faith.
Of course, it isn't possible. That renders the Likudist dream of a Greater Israel in a sea of pacified Palestinians with second class citizenship every bit as irrelevant as Arafat's dream of being able to remain on earth and skim funds off the PA for all eternity.
Another vision of Palestine is presented by the Palestinian right wing militants. This is a Palestine that, like the Likudist Greater Israel, stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and in which non-Arabs -- indeed, non-Muslims, Arab or otherwise -- will have fewer rights than a class designated to rule. Of course, Israel is strong enough to maintain its own existence at least within the confines of the Green Line or something close to it, so the idea of a single state where one nationality has legal supremacy over the other is no more possible with Arabs dominating Jews than it is with Jews dominating Arabs.
Thus, this vision also is irrelevant as fully laid out, but may have some viability in a limited form. Sooner or later Israel will have to end the occupation, uproot the settlements and acquiesce to a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. That the Palestinian state that could emerge is an Islamic dictatorship is possible. As progressives, we would not view such a state as desirable, but it is possible. For the Palestinian people, it would not be as good as the secular democracy that would emerge if progressive Palestinians like those named above were to mold the Palestinian state and society, but it is better than the prospects of continued Israeli occupation where the rights of Israelis to build settlements outweigh the rights of Palestinians wishing to harvest olives.
The reality we must face is that at this time it is the Islamic right wing that holds the real power in Palestine. They have the guns. They have been leading the active Resistance to Israeli occupation, an occupation that all Palestinians would like to see end. Now, they are challenging the authority of the PA. If there were free and fair elections in Palestine, Arafat, the symbol of Palestinian nationalism, might remain in power, but most of his political allies, like the Gaza police commissioner, would probably be voted out. Since there are no free and fair elections in Palestine, the people are doing the next best thing: throwing corrupt public officials out by force of arms.
Thus, the Islamic right is seeking to further its credibility by taking up arms not only against the Israeli occupation but against the PA. They regard both as enemies of the people. It is difficult to disagree with them in that respect.
If it is true that the Palestinians -- meaning Arafat and his people -- never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, then it is equally true that the Israelis have missed several opportunities. Perhaps Arafat should not have walked out of Camp David before making a counter offer; on the other hand, perhaps Barak's "generous" offer should have more closely resembled one that a respectable Palestinian leader could have accepted.
The present strength of Palestinian Islamists rose out of the ashes of Oslo. At this time, they have emerged as the active alternative to the PA and the Israelis. They will remain strong until the Palestinian people are presented with a viable alternative to all three.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
