Towards a new vision

Palestinians may need a new political leadership, but the international community and the Arab world need to end their silence and intervene, writes Mohamed El-Sayed Said*

---

The complete destruction inflicted on Rafah by Sharon and his bunch of war criminals was meant actually to scandalise Arab leaders who held their summit in Tunis a single day after the Israeli troops finished their dirty business in the ravished city. The summit answered the challenge by condemnation and oddly enough by re-emphasising the Beirut summit peace initiative. Neither made much sense. It is evidently clear that Israel decided a long time ago not to get deterred by the moral cost associated with its open defiance of the Geneva Conventions and their restrictions on use of brutal force against civilian population under occupation. Its traditional strategic doctrine, coined "heavy retaliation", was never before coloured by international humanitarian law, nor any other law for that matter, other than the law of the jungle.

Re-positing the Arab peace initiative is even more ridiculous. Even the Bush administration, which pressured Arab leaders to produce it, first in Riyadh and later in Beirut, never thought it to be an adequate compensation for Israelis to concede the territories occupied in 1967. Many Arab diplomats who met Mr Cheney, the vice president of the United States and the real architect of the present administration's Middle East policy, narrated how he produced a sanguine smile when they suggested the activation of the Arab peace initiative. Kissinger is known for his view that losers of war have to pay a heavy cost.

Rejecting the call for complete withdrawal to 1967 borders in return for complete peace is shared between Sharon's government and the previous Labour Party government headed by Barak. So why emphasise it? Some would naturally argue that the summit decision on this issue was not meant to actually lure Israel into serious peace talks. This is why the Tunis summit also emphasised the notorious roadmap, as Arab leaders do not seem to be convinced of its assured burial.

The Arab summit did not have much of a "new thinking" on the matter. Arafat's bag was equally empty, as he reiterated the same themes that fell on deaf Israeli and American ears so many times before.

It seems, then, that Palestinians are left only to go on with the sole strategy they deem open to them after the collapse of Camp David II. However, no new signs are looming on the horizon to indicate that Israelis are coming to their senses. On the contrary, we have every indication that insanity will continue to prevail for a long while to come. The length of the struggle failed to change the priorities of the Israeli public, arguably having the opposite effect of further feeding Israeli fanaticism and aggressiveness. On the other hand, Israelis feel more confident after the building of the segregation wall. Their appetite for swallowing Palestinian land is fuelled by the wall and encouragement by the Bush administration.

A new opening on the part of the international community is not expected soon either, unless a fundamental new factor enters the situation and comes to change it in a significant manner. The probable fall of Bush in the coming elections may not mean much for the Palestinians as his rival, Mr Kerry, is seemingly no less biased towards Israel. And Europe will not gain greater militancy on this issue either, unless strongly motivated to do so by domestic constituencies.

This means that all rational arguments for the militarisation of the Intifada are proving fallacious. In fact, these arguments caused the conflict to further slide into complete futility. The only remaining rationale is the lack of peaceful alternatives. And, since Palestinians and Arabs are never going to surrender or capitulate, the adversities of the situation can only push Palestinians towards a Massada type of struggle.

Should rational people submit to this bitter reality? Certainly not. If clear alternatives seem to be lacking, they have to be created. A new strategy for Palestinian national movement should be devised and constructed on the few remaining dynamic factors in the situation.

Arab countries do not seem to produce new dynamic factors, neither to their own much- needed domestic reforms nor for re-steering Palestinian national struggle. New dynamic factors can only be found in global civil society and partially in Europe and in the fact that Palestinians are learning on the ground. A new strategy can and should be founded on these factors.

Palestinians have displayed many signs of learning. The proposal made by Prime Minister Abu Alaa to hold local elections indicates this learning, even though it has come so late. The proposal is made with the aim of breaking the diplomatic stalemate and encouraging the United States to pressure Israel for the withdrawal necessary to hold elections. However, it also indicates the recognition by the Palestinian national community that a change of leadership is genuinely needed. We can hope that the intellectual class, civil society and many in the top leadership of the PLO will eventually come to recognise the need for a complete rebuilding of the Palestinian political structure.

Nonetheless, the world cannot expect learning to bring an immediate change of Palestinian leadership or a new strategy of action in the midst of growing opposition to the Israeli occupation regime and its brutal policies. Only when global civil society strongly intervenes in the situation in such a way as to give Palestinians serious hope can they re-steer their national struggle towards a renewed peaceful strategy.

The re-invigoration of global civil society on behalf of the Palestinian national struggle places strong pressure on Europe to change its soft tactics in relation to this issue. It might also change the mindset of the world Jewry, bringing them to intervene rationally for a peaceful settlement. Only when popular pressures are applied we can expect a new American president, such as Mr Kerry, to act forcefully and in a semi-balanced manner to reverse the terrible situation in the Middle East generally, and in the occupied Palestinian territories specifically.

Arab and international civil society organisations should act very strongly on this vision. A good start can be the holding of a world conference on Palestine as soon as preparations can be arranged. What we have in mind is an impressive, perhaps unprecedented, global gathering for peace and justice in the Middle East. Solid planning is needed to hold such a conference. And more vigorous planning for the implementation of its decisions would be required. The United Nations can be instrumental in helping such an alternative to emerge. However, it falls on Arab civil society to discharge the duties of making the initiative, putting together the needed plan of action and making the coming few years an opportunity for restoring justice and peace in Palestine and the whole region.

* The writer is deputy director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.