 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 17 - 23 August 2000 Issue No. 495 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 17 - 23 August 2000 Issue No. 495
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Forsaking the smear
By Ibrahim Nafie
Never has it been more imperative for the Palestinians to hold the domestic front together. As they are readying themselves for the complex and sensitive final status talks, it is healthy to have a vocal opposition, but only if it acts responsibly and constructively. It has, therefore, been dismaying, considering the crucial circumstances facing the Palestinian people at this juncture, to hear the venomous mudslinging campaign launched by some elements of the Palestinian opposition against President Yasser Arafat and other senior Palestinian officials.
In Camp David, President Arafat demonstrated in clear, practical terms his rejection of all proposals that fall short of the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people, particularly with regards to Jerusalem. He has also come under tremendous pressure from the US and Israel following the failure of those negotiations. Yet, we find certain Palestinian opposition elements, foremost among which is the so-called "Central Command of the Alliance of Palestinian Forces," flinging wild and totally unfounded allegations. They say that the announcement that Camp David failed to achieve results is a smoke screen intended to brighten the image of Arafat and give him time to make the necessary manoeuvres inside Palestine in order to strengthen his position.
Worse yet, they accuse the Palestinian leader of working towards a settlement that will sell out the Palestinian cause. Camp David, they claim, marked the beginning of a great conspiracy, involving many parties, to put an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the detriment of the Palestinians' rightful demands. They also maintain that all the agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israelis to date -- from Oslo to Cairo, Washington, Taba, Wye Plantation and Sharm El-Sheikh -- form a series of capitulations at the expense of the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people. These agreements, they say, squandered Palestinian rights and sanctioned Israel's presence on Palestinian land, and as such constitute an affront to everything the long and arduous Palestinian and Arab struggle has stood for.
This vilification is highly reminiscent of the rhetoric of the inter-Arab cold war of the 1960s when posturing behind mutual accusations of betrayal and treachery was one of the major causes of the defeats the Arabs suffered during that period. One would have thought that Arab political behaviour had risen beyond such cheap tactics, that we had reached a stage where opposition factions voice their criticisms in the form of logically constructed arguments and offer reasonable and practical alternatives. Clearly, the Palestinian opposition has yet to reach this stage, and has chosen instead to entrench itself behind the hackneyed rhetoric of the past.
Of course, their charges are entirely without substance. There is a vast difference between "selling-out" on the Palestinian cause and opting for a peaceful solution. The Arab-Israeli peace process has the backing of the entire international community and the active participation of all influential powers. The problem resides not in the strategic choice of peace, but in how to ensure that the settlement process proceeds in a manner that secures the Palestinians their legitimate rights. True, the Israelis enjoy a number of major advantages, among which is the overwhelming political, military and economic support of the US, and they have been extremely obstinate and obstructive negotiating partners. Yet it is also true that nothing can force the Palestinians to accept a prejudicial or unjust settlement. This is exactly what Arafat proved in his rejection, in spite of all the arm-twisting, of Israeli proposals which essentially aimed to impose Israeli hegemony over East Jerusalem and to freeze the Palestinian refugee issue.
It is also absurd to accuse Arafat of transforming Palestinian cities into stranded islands, surrounded by Israeli occupation forces and settlers, since it has always been the expansionist and repressive policies of the Israeli occupation that sought to create this situation, especially in East Jerusalem. The response to this is, and should always have been, for Arabs to intensify their campaign to beleaguer Israel with international demands for peace. History has demonstrated that Israel has always been able to capitalise dramatically on its claims that it is surrounded by a sea of Arabs bent on its destruction. History has also disproved its claims, and since the peace process began, Israel has come under immense international pressure to restore Palestinian and Arab rights and to bring the peace process to a just and lasting solution. Indeed, in Camp David there were strong indications that Barak had to back down on at least one of his famous "No's" -- that Jerusalem be the undivided, eternal capital of Israel -- precisely because this demand contravenes all relevant international resolutions.
Beyond slogans that cost them nothing, what practical alternatives do the opposition offer? None to speak of. Some spoke of reviving armed resistance in the West Bank on the model of the Hizbullah-led resistance in Lebanon. Yet, while the UN charter and international law grant the right to self-defence and to resist foreign occupation by force of arms, it is still premature to consider this option. As long as a peaceful alternative exists it should be given its fullest due.
Another question asserts itself. The "Central Command of the Alliance of Palestinian Forces" claims to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people, but how did it earn this purported mandate? The fact is that Palestinian opposition members, particularly the more radical among them, speak only for themselves. They were not elected nor do they have any credible claim to represent any segment of Palestinian opinion. The Palestinian people whom these people claim to represent elected Arafat as their president. Whatever the opposition might think of his policies, they cannot deny that Arafat is the historical leader who shaped the course of Palestinian action over more than three decades of the most crucial importance to the Palestinian cause.
Whatever criticisms may be leveled at Arafat's performance, his leadership sustained the momentum of the Palestinian national struggle through great adversity and, simultaneously, succeeded in achieving a high degree of harmony within the Palestinian national movement. In addition, Arafat succeeded in gaining for the Palestinian people a foothold in Palestine, creating tangible roots for the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
A strong and effective Palestinian opposition is necessary, not only to monitor the performance of the Palestinian Authority (PA) but also to support, indirectly, the Palestinian position during negotiations and to set the ceiling on what can or cannot be accepted, a game which the Israelis have played to perfection. But to be effective in this capacity the Palestinian opposition must forsake smear tactics that only wreak havoc in Palestinian and Arab ranks. Only through responsible and constructive behaviour can the PA and the opposition join forces and, through continuous consultation, work towards a more effective management of the peace process.
