 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 14 - 20 September 2000 Issue No. 499 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 14 - 20 September 2000 Issue No. 499
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Region Interview International Economy Opinion Culture Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Deciding not to decide - twice
By Graham UsherAside from the delegates and ubiquitous security, the only people near the PLO Central Council meeting in Gaza last weekend were the media. CNN led news bulletins with "updates" from the session. Analysts pored over the lacunae between the lines of Yasser Arafat's Saturday night speech to detect what stance he was "advising" the Council to take. Even the minuscule rallies by the PLO opposition factions demanding a "unilateral declaration of statehood now" smacked more of a photo-op than genuine sentiment.
For the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza - and everywhere else - the Council had all the significance of a sandstorm in the desert. "The people know Arafat won't declare a state," said Palestinian analyst and human rights activist Eyad Sarraj. "They know it's a farce."
The second time as farce. Bending to the will of the world (indeed "upon official request from President Clinton") Arafat told the Council that "decisive" negotiations with Israel would resume immediately with the aim of reaching an agreement within the next "five difficult weeks." Israel immediately denied any resumption of negotiations. And, on cue, the special committee formed by Arafat to draft the Council's concluding statement dusted down the text it issued on 27 April 1999 -- the first time he deferred on declaring the Palestinians' "inalienable" right to self-determination.
There was no declaration of statehood at the end of Oslo's elastic interim period on 13 September or indeed on any other specific date. Rather the PLO executive and other bodies will again be "empowered" (as they were at the Council session in July) to take "steps" to "make Palestinian sovereignty a material reality on its own land." A constitution will be framed; laws will be drawn up for new local, parliamentary and presidential elections; and an official request will be submitted to make the "State of Palestine a member of the United Nations".
In the meantime, the Council will remain in session pending a "detailed report" on these initiatives sometime before15 November, "the date on which Palestinian independence was declared in Algiers in 1988" (and the week the US presidential elections will be well and truly over). As for the so-called interim period, its end "does not exempt the Israeli side from completing its military redeployment in the Palestinian occupied territories or releasing Palestinian prisoners," said the statement. Nor, presumably, will it exempt the Palestinian side from carrying its security obligations on behalf of Israel as set down by the same "interim" agreements.
Arafat before taking the decision of postponing the declaration of statehood (photo: AP)
In sum, the Council decided not to decide, but for the second time. And for the second time it was slammed as a cop-out by the Palestinian opposition. Hamas (which this time, unlike the April 1999 session, did not even bother to send observers) cautioned the Palestinian leadership about the "lack of credibility" it was projecting both to the Palestinian people and to the world. The Democratic and Popular Fronts warned that a continuation of negotiations on "Israel's terms" would never result in an agreement "respecting Palestinian rights". The sole difference this time was that the opposition was not alone in its discontent.
At the start of the Council meeting on Saturday 9 September, there were 114 delegates attending. By the time the concluding statement was approved on Sunday night, 76 cast their vote. Of these, 15 voted against the statement and three abstained, including Fatah Central Council member, Sakher Habash, and the head of the Palestinian Legislative Council's Political Committee, Ziad Abu Amr. The rest either left early or sat on their hands, declining to fake participating in a decision that had long been taken. In other words, 58 delegates supported the deferral of statehood -- a minority of the 129-member Council.
In this the absentees were at least in tune with the views of their constituency. In the run-up to the Council meeting, Birzeit University conducted an opinion poll of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. On virtually every variable it revealed the enormous chasm that now divides the people from the decisions their leadership take on their behalf.
Thus while the Council reaffirmed that "peace was the strategic choice of the Palestinian people," 55 percent of the people backed a declaration of statehood on 13 September even if this meant a "confrontation with Israel." While the modalities of Palestinian sovereignty are to be decided by PLO bodies dominated by Arafat's Fatah faction, only 33 percent of Palestinians actually support Fatah. Thirteen percent support Hamas, who are not represented in the PLO. And a colossal 44 percent do not believe in any of the factions.
Never has the consensus of the people been so divorced from the "consensus expressed by our political class," says editor of the Islamist Al-Risala newspaper, Ghazi Hamad, who includes Hamas in his critique. And the consequence he predicts is an increase in the "simmering frustration and mistrust" Palestinians already feel toward their leadership, whether "in the Authority or the opposition", adding to "deepening crisis of faith between them."
For this reason he argues the debate over the declaration of statehood is now wholly sterile. Instead "we should form a national unity government which will decide -- once and for all -- whether negotiations are the only way to recover our lands. Having consulted with the world, the very least Mr Arafat can do is consult with the Palestinian people and ask them if they want this process to continue or not."
The Birzeit poll would suggest the kind of answer most Palestinians would give. So far their refusal is passive, which is why bodies like the Council can pronounce on their fate with such public indifference. But it may become active the moment the leadership attempts to enlist them as the fodder to "realise Palestinian sovereignty" or accept an agreement that, almost certainly, will be decided without them.
Related stories
The deal-breaker
A third way 24 - 30 August 2000
A role without a hero 24 - 30 August 2000
And the clock ticks on 31 August - 6 September 2000
'Pray in Jerusalem' 27 July - 2 August 2000
