Palestinian elections not Israel's choice, Aref Assaf, The Herald News,
5-31- 2002
I welcome the push by the Palestinian Legislative Council, set up under the Oslo
agreements, to reform of the Palestinian Authority (PA), its executive
counterpart. Arafat's regime is notoriously corrupt and any democratic reforms
are long overdue and must surely be welcomed. However, it should also be noted
that it is an achievement to have even the current level of democracy under
circumstances of extended and increasingly brutal military occupation seemingly
intent on destroying the infrastructures of civilian governance.
The context for the demand for reform of the PA is twofold. On the one hand, of
course, there are the recent US and Israeli government's demands for reform (and
to a lesser extent their echoes in the European and Arab countries). These
demands for democratic reforms seem suspect and ironic when judged by long held
perceptions that the US “prefers” stable but less than democratic regime to
ensure its interests are served. The task to create a new Palestinian polity
will be insurmountable considering that the Palestinians do not have any real
sovereignty over their lands and it is possible that Israel may end up changing
course as more “extremists’ Palestinian leaders emerge as serious contenders for
Arafat’s seat. Israel’s tight grip of the Palestinians areas will play a pivotal
role in who will run and how people will be able to move freely to cast their
votes. On the other, there is also intense and growing pressure from the
Palestinian people in the illegally occupied West Bank. Arafat is currently so
unpopular that he was unable to give a speech in Jenin for fear of his own
safety. But the Palestinians, exposed to Israeli democracy (though never its
beneficiaries), combined with disproportionately unequal level of education and
political awareness, may see a silver lining in the recent Israeli invasion of
the West Bank. Arafat’s tactical errors have earned him stern criticism from his
people who felt justified in calling for sweeping changes in the PA, and
especially Arafat’s firm hold on power and money disbursements. Yet Arafat is
not known to be an easy foe. He will utilize his political charm to create new
alliances that may renders true reforms and stifle hopes for newer, more skilled
yet politically disenfranchised leadership.
What is questionable is whether these two pressures are pushing in anything
remotely like the same direction or end goal. There is no guarantee that the
resultant leadership if it ever materializes, will be what was envisioned by
those forces prodding for change at the top of the PA. The main concern of the
US and Israeli governments, judging by the emphasis in their public remarks, is
constructing a security force that will do Israel's dirty work, namely killing
and or arresting militant Palestinians. The immediate reason the Palestinians
want “ reform” has resulted from their outrage that Arafat should have bartered
away so many Palestinians into (internationally illegal) exile or kangaroo
courts to gain his personal freedom, with, in the background, the possibility
that he connived with, or certainly did not strenuously oppose, the US veto on a
UN fact-finding mission to Jenin. But there has been an ongoing call for
internal changes of the PA. Their demands were often subdued by external,
namely, Israeli actions. Additionally, the Palestinians never envisioned the PA
but temporary instruments of government. They had hoped that once the occupation
ends, as stipulated in the Oslo accords, by 199, that a state will be declared,
that sovereignty of Palestinians lands will assured leading to true and genuine
election and possibly new leadership. Meanwhile, It would be a grave mistake to
expect that a new and more democratic Palestinian Authority is probably more
likely than Arafat to bend to the Israeli demands. Talk of 'reform' from the
Israeli side ought therefore to be viewed quite separately from welcome
grassroots democratic pressure. For Israel and especially, PM Sharon, has
targeted Arafat as the reason for no negotiations with the Palestinians. Sharon,
who has declared his intentions to prolong the “peace process”, is betting his
political career that Arafat will not be removed; thus justifying the current
status quo- namely continued occupation of Palestinians lands. Besides, if
democracy was supposed to seek peaceful resolution, how come, successive Israeli
leaders, freely elected in the “only” democracy in the Middle East have failed
to negotiate a settlement with Palestinians and instead sought to occupy more
lands, build more settlements, kill thousands of Palestinians civilians? The
core problem remains the illegal occupation of Arab and Palestinian lands
irrespective of the form government in either side of the conflict.
Respectfully,
|
|
