Washington — It was a very bad week for Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. And that made it a good one for Palestinian reformers, the Bush administration and Israelis who want the peace process resurrected.
Arafat blamed his troubles on the dreaded Zionists. He was partially right, but a lot of folks deserve credit, including the Americans and a slew of once reliable supporters like his own Fatah faction, the Palestinian Legislative Council, the Russians, the European Union and the United Nations.
There was a touch of justice when Arafat’s parliament, which he had sought to marginalize ever since it was elected in 1996, started to marginalize him. The old terrorist had no one else to blame but himself.
Last week his friends and enemies — unofficially — joined to force him to name a prime minister and hand over real powers. Arafat did not give up easily, but when what he thought was a puppet parliament rebelled and rejected his pleas to protect his power, it was the beginning of the end.
But is it also the beginning of a new era? Some are hailing the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, as prime minister as a giant step toward reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Abbas, Arafat’s longtime deputy and sometime rival, refused to take the job until assured he would have real power and not be another Arafat puppet. President Bush came to his aid with a hastily arranged Rose Garden speech saying he would only deal with an independent Palestinian prime minister with real authority. Translation: Arafat must go.
Abbas was the candidate of Palestinian reformers, the Israelis, Americans and the Europeans. He’s an ardent Palestinian nationalist and tough negotiator, but they consider him a pragmatic moderate with whom they can work — unlike Arafat who is widely considered corrupt, incompetent and not serious about making peace with Israel.
Extremists complain
It may be a good sign that the harshest criticism of Abbas’ selection comes from extremists on both sides.
Palestinian radicals, particularly the Islamist terror groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, called the appointment a surrender to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and to Bush, and an abandonment of the intifada.
On the other side, Arutz 7, the radio voice of Israel’s far right, and the Zionist Organization of America attacked Abbas as a “Holocaust denier who has called for murdering Jews in the territories.” ZOA also said Bush’s call for halting settlement construction “smacks of racism.”
Those around Sharon greeted Abbas’s appointment with cautious optimism. His advisor and former Washington ambassador Zalman Shoval called Abbas “a respected person without any doubt, and I don’t doubt his good intentions.” Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and Dan Meridor, the former justice minister, also praised the appointment.
Sharon’s spokesman, Ranaan Gissin, rebuked the rejectionists. By their standards, he said, Israel should not have signed peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt because “at one time or another [their leaders] harbored views against Israel or collaborated with the Nazis.”
All agreed a critical question is the extent of Abbas’ authority.
Tough questions
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said she can think of “nothing better” than inviting Abbas to the White House to talk about restarting the peace process. But before the invitation goes out, the Bush administration should ask some tough questions. Here are a few:
What will Abbas do to establish the credibility and integrity of the prime minister and his government, both among Palestinians and with Israelis?
What steps will he take to convince Israelis that he is ready to make meaningful compromises and live in peace?
Does he accept the principle of territorial compromise? Does he still hold the view that previous Israeli offers to withdraw from 95 percent of the territories are unacceptable and nothing less than 100 percent will do?
Does he still demand that every single Jewish settlement, even new neighborhoods around Jerusalem, be removed?
Does he recognize Israeli and Jewish claims to the Temple Mount?
Does he still feel, as he wrote in the 1980s, that Zionist leaders collaborated with the Nazis “to expand the mass extermination” of the Jews to justify seizing Palestine?
Will he move immediately to halt incitement in the Palestinian media, classrooms and mosques that spread hatred of Jews, Israel and the West?
Will he purge Arafat’s corrupt and incompetent cronies from government and bring in people most likely to win international respect?
Will he work to end the violence against Israelis on both sides of the green line, or does he consider settlers and soldiers in the territories fair targets?
Does he understand it is highly unlikely any Israeli government will be able to come near to matching the Israeli proposals at Camp David? In the past, he endorsed Arafat’s rejection of those offers as “the right thing to do.”
Will he have power over the security apparatus and the will to use it to disarm the extremists?
Where does he stand on the Palestinian right of return? This is the “litmus test” of Abbas’ seriousness about making peace with Israel, said Israeli historian Dan Schueftan.
Abbas has said all Palestinian refugees should be free to return to “every place they have left.” Schueftan said, “This is the ultimate incitement because it is a way of saying Israel as a Jewish state shouldn’t exist.”
But Abbas is not the only one who will have to face some tough questions in the months ahead. Here are some for Sharon and Bush:
Did Sharon demand Palestinian reforms because that’s what he wanted to resuscitate the peace process, or because he thought Arafat would never agree, and that would keep him (Sharon) off the hook?
What is Sharon willing to do to encourage and bolster the new Palestinian government?
Will Bush be satisfied with Abbas’ appointment or demand results before publishing the road map and pressing Israel for concessions?
A big unanswered question is whether Arafat will go quietly or try to regain some of his lost power, and how the Palestinian people will respond to the leadership change.
One thing most observers agree on: Arafat’s bad week could create a rare opportunity for ending 30 months of senseless violence and moving back to the peace table.
Douglas M. Bloomfield is a Washington, D.C.-based syndicated columnist and a former chief lobbyist for AIPAC.
Loading ...