 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 August 2000 Issue No. 494 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 August 2000 Issue No. 494
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Books Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Back to the wall
By Graham UsherIn Abu Dhabi on Monday -- the latest station on a tour that has so far taken in a dozen countries -- Yasser Arafat said that he hoped that an Arab summit might be convened to support "the Palestinian stance on Jerusalem." Failing that, he hoped a meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) could be held. "Perhaps even a gathering of the Committee on Jerusalem," he added.
Such calls have fallen on deaf ears since the collapse of the Camp David summit. The Palestinian leader is fully aware that none of these forums is likely to meet anytime soon, at least not before the negotiations' deadline of 13 September. And his exasperation is beginning to show.
On 6 August, Al-Khaleej newspaper in the United Arab Emirates published a letter it said Arafat had recently sent to various Arab leaders. It underscored "the need to hold a comprehensive Arab summit to declare a unified Arab position against what is being offered the Palestinians on Jerusalem in the final status negotiations." If this is not going to happen, then "let us [the Palestinians] decide our future alone and answer the difficult questions imposed on us by the US."
There is no way of attesting to the authenticity of this reported letter. But it is true to say that it neatly expresses the bind in which Arafat finds himself.
On the one hand, he stands accused of "inflexibility" by the Israelis and a want of "courage" by US President Bill Clinton due to his refusal at Camp David to countenance any deal on Jerusalem and the refugees that was not at least "based on" international legitimacy. On the other hand, he has received at best tacit support from the Arabs for this stand and a resounding silence from the Europeans, whose diplomatic antenna still seems more attuned to the domestic straits of Ehud Barak than the national and international rights of the Palestinians.
Furthermore, Arafat is currently being swept by a wave of increased expectations amongst his people, unleashed by his "heroic" stance at Camp David. This at least is the conclusion of a poll carried out among Palestinians in the wake of the summit by Dr Khalil Shikaki's Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah. But the results are double-edged for the Palestinian leader in terms of his "room for manoeuvre in his negotiations with Barak," says Shikaki.
The good news for Arafat is that 68 per cent of Palestinians think his overall performance at Camp David was "just right." The bad news is that this support is entirely conditional, and declines whenever Palestinians were asked about the reported "understandings" that were discussed at the summit.
Thus in response to the report that Arafat had accepted in principle the idea of a land transfer in exchange for Israel's annexation of settlement blocs in the West Bank, 55 per cent of Palestinians thought the acceptance "too compromising." In answer to reports that the Palestinians agreed to Israeli demands for a ban on a Palestinian air force and heavy weaponry and an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley, 68 per cent of Palestinians said this was too accommodating to Israel's "security needs."
Finally, 57 per cent of Palestinians believed a trade-off whereby Israel received sovereignty over the Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem while the Palestinians received sovereignty over the Arab neighbourhoods and holy places was "too much of a compromise." By way of contrast, 68 per cent of Palestinians supported Arafat's insistence that Israel must recognise UN resolution 194 and the right of return for the Palestinian refugees.
Nor does Arafat's manoeuvrability get any more elastic as 13 September approaches. Fifty-six per cent of Palestinians believe he should declare a Palestinian state on that day, regardless of threats of Israeli annexation and warnings from Clinton of the "consequences" that would ensue (like cutting off US aid and moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem). Sixty per cent believe "violent confrontations" should be used to realise Palestinian sovereignty over the land, and 63 per cent believe the Palestinian leadership should emulate the model of popular and military struggle employed by Hizbullah to liberate south Lebanon.
"Yes," admits Fatah Central Committee member Sakher Habash, "Arafat's back is to the wall. And when your back is against the wall you cannot retreat further."
Habash is one of the leaders of Fatah's Tanzim Shaabi, or popular organisation, and is fully in tune with the constraints imposed by Palestinian opinion, including such attitudes as revealed by the PSR poll. For this reason he is pessimistic that another summit can be called this side of 13 September, "especially given the kind of language Clinton is now using."
Nor does he believe a "partial agreement" is feasible whereby, say, Israel would recognise an undefined Palestinian state in exchange for a deferral of issues like Jerusalem and refugees. "Of course I would support Arafat if he were to be convinced by such a step," he says. "But I personally would be against a partial agreement, and so would most of Fatah. A deal under which you postpone Jerusalem and the refugees would be seen as a 'bribe' for a state. A bribe for a puppet state."
As for the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood on 13 September, this he believes can be delayed. "I prefer 15 November -- the 12th anniversary of the initial Declaration of Independence, (by Arafat in Algeria in 1988)" but not indefinitely and certainly not on Israeli or American orders. "We have already delayed the declaration for 16 months, on the advice of our 'friends' in Europe and America," says Habash. "We will not make the same mistake again."
