By Douglas M. Bloomfield
Washington — The Palestinian leadership crisis following Mahmoud Abbas’ resignation and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat’s selection of a long-time loyalist to replace him is far more than an internal power-struggle.
It goes to the heart of whether the Palestinian vision for the Middle East includes a Jewish homeland.
Arafat, like all dictators, is a corrupt autocrat who dreads competition and has never been very good at sharing anything, especially power. Abbas quit because Arafat denied him the authority needed to fight terror and resuscitate the peace process, and it’s unlikely Ahmed Qureia will fare any better.
The Bush and Sharon governments welcomed Abbas after his appointment barely 100 days ago, heaping praise on him and making shows of support. They soon lost confidence in his ability to lead when he proved to be weak, ineffectual and unwilling to take on job one: dismantling the terror network.
Neither Washington nor Jerusalem gave him the help he needed. Bush was preoccupied with the deepening morass in Iraq and his own coming election campaign.
Sharon was unwilling to offer more than a few small gestures. He rebuffed Palestinian and American requests for even a temporary settlement freeze, which would have bolstered Abbas’ standing.
Abbas’ successor can expect even less, especially if he is an Arafat loyalist like Qureia with no real power except to do as the boss tells him.
But the real issue isn’t who becomes prime minister and what powers he has or even who is at fault for the latest crisis. It is the question Palestinians — and, indeed, the Arab world — haven’t been able to come to terms with in more than half a century: Is it more important to build a Palestinian state or to destroy the Jewish one?
Arafat or statehood
Organizations like Hamas, the Islamic terrorist group which Abbas sought to absorb into the P.A. instead of destroying, insist there is no place in the Middle East for a Jewish homeland called Israel. Arafat appears to agree, despite his periodic rhetoric about a two-state solution.
If Palestinians decide statehood is their true goal, they must also understand that it cannot be achieved through violence. Arafat tried violence for decades and it failed; but his sabotaging of Abbas indicates he hasn’t abandoned violence as his primary negotiating tool.
Abbas, for all his weaknesses, was committed to the political path. He called the intifada a failure that only worsened the plight of the Palestinian people and diminished their international support.
What it comes down to is the Palestinians have to choose between Arafat and statehood. The two have proven incompatible. Israel will block the establishment of an Arafat-run state.
The Bush administration, which has been committed to establishing a Palestinian state in 2005, is threatening to shelve that and withdraw support for the road map and the P.A. if Arafat is running things.
As Secretary of State Colin Powell said again this week, Arafat is the problem, not the solution. Arafat persistently undermined his prime minister with what Abbas described as “harsh and dangerous domestic incitement,” refused to surrender control of security forces and withheld needed public backing.
Israel’s foreign and defense ministers have been talking in recent days about exiling the Palestinian leader. Some Israelis want him arrested and at least one minister said death is the only answer. Sharon hasn’t said anything yet, but he has given his word to Bush that he will not harm Arafat.
What is clear is that the peace process is going nowhere until Arafat goes. But how, when and where he goes are decisions for the Palestinians, not Israelis or anyone else.
Israelis like Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who don’t have the good sense to shut up when the enemy is in a self-destruct mode, only make matters worse by rallying supporters around the beleaguered old terrorist.
Keeping Arafat under virtual house arrest at his Ramallah compound allows Israelis to keep an eye — and a lot of ears — on him. Exile would only, as Powell said, “give him a broader stage” from which to rally support, especially from his European friends who have been his biggest enablers.
Getting rid of Arafat will not bring peace, but it will eliminate a major obstacle, although only if removed by his own people.
This latest crisis will not have been in vain if it serves to convince some erstwhile allies like the Europeans, Arab leaders and the United Nations that Middle East peace and Arafat are incompatible; and that as long as they continue to pay homage to him, make pilgrimages to Ramallah to bask in his presence and stroke his abundant ego, they will be just like him — part of the problem, not the solution.
Douglas M. Bloomfield is a Washington, D.C.-based syndicated columnist and a former chief lobbyist for AIPAC.
Loading ...