27 Sep. - 3 Oct. 2001
Issue No.553
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 27 Sep. - 3 Oct. 2001 Issue No.553 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
A life in tatters
photo: Thomas Hartwell
This for that
The Intifada was a direct reaction to Israeli procrastination on the agreements it had signed with the PA, and to right-wing groups' insatiable drive to seize more land by expanding existing settlements, tightening their grip on Jerusalem, claiming sovereignty over the eastern section of the city, and preparing to retain large portions of the West Bank and Gaza in any final-status agreement.
When Hizbullah sealed its victory over Israel, the peace talks had been losing impetus on all tracks. The Palestinians realised they had to regroup; there would be popular pressure as well as direct engagement with enemy forces. These have not forced the enemy to withdraw, but they have carried the confrontation into Israel's heart. Arab popular support for the Palestinian uprising has also emerged.
The uprising was a predominantly peaceful civilian movement until the breakdown of the Camp David talks and Sharon's accession to power. His escalation of military attacks has prompted the Palestinians to respond, directing their activities against the occupation forces, Jewish settlers and even Israeli cities across the "green line." Whatever one's opinion of these operations (especially the targeting of civilians), the Israelis have suffered many losses. In this sense, Sharon has failed to bring security to Israel.
The Palestinian leadership thought the Intifada would force the Israelis to negotiate, withdraw from the occupied territories, and recognise the Palestinians' right to sovereignty over their land and the establishment of a state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Has 11 September changed this picture?
On one hand, the attack has shifted international focus onto efforts to combat terrorism. The US is forcing Palestinians and Israelis to observe a cease- fire, resume talks and pave the way for the Arab world to join the war on terrorism. The attack has also reminded Americans of Palestinian suffering and Arab and Muslim sympathy with that plight.
Palestinian leaders may therefore find it difficult to pursue military operations against Israel. It may be more fruitful to halt operations targeting civilians. But this does not mean that the uprising as a form of civilian resistance to occupation must be halted. For the uprising to end, the Palestinians must get something from the Israelis in return: they must withdraw to the 28 September 2000 lines, lift the siege, withdraw from the peripheries of cities, prohibit incursions into areas A and B, allow the Palestinians free passage, remove roadblocks and return Orient House. The US must guarantee all these measures. The recommendations of the Mitchell report must be implemented and the security of Palestinians overseen by international observers.
Palestinian forces must maintain national mobilisation, pursue the uprising under new political and civil forms and reach out more to engage the masses. Furthermore, they must build new fronts in the Arab and Islamic countries and the world at large.
*The writer is director of the New Research Centre, Jordan.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page