FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Widow of Opportunity?

My immediate reaction to Marwan Barghouti’s registration as a candidate for the presidency of the Palestinian Authority was positive.

First of all, I am always in favor of the underdog. And who could be more of an underdog than a prisoner?

Second, I respect the man. I have met him at planning meetings for joint peace actions. I have demonstrated for him in Tel-Aviv and been forcibly evicted from the court building, with a rightist lynch mob howling in the background.

Third, the Marwan Barghouti candidacy puts the fate of the Palestinian prisoners on the agenda–those prisoners of war who are treated like common criminals by Israel.

Fourth, his candidacy (if he exercises it) will set the stage for a scene unprecedented in the Arab world: an election where the victory of one candidate is no assured in advance. An Abu Mazen-Marwan Barghouti confrontation would be a real fight.

On second thoughts I took the opposite view.

The whole world is following these elections in order to see if the Palestinian people is capable of uniting in time of crisis, after the death of the Father of the Nation. In his 45 years as leader of the struggle for liberation, Yasser Arafat succeeded in maintaining the unity of his people, a well-nigh impossible task. Many have predicted that after his death the nation will break into a hundred splinters. The unity around Abu-Mazen has–at least until now–confounded these hopes (or fears.)

I am not a religious believer in “Unity”. Debate and dispute are the lifeblood of democracy, and when the time comes, the Palestinians will have to debate thoroughly the future course of their struggle for liberation. But: is this the right time?

I think not. Disunity among the Palestinians at this moment will provide a pretext for the enemies of peace within the Israeli and American leaderships. They will exclaim with great joy: “See? There is no one to talk with!” It is important for the Palestinian people to show the world that there is indeed someone to talk with. And since both President Bush and his guide and mentor, Ariel Sharon, have already declared that Abu Mazen is “moderate” and “pragmatic”, they will be hard put to go back to the mendacious slogan “We Have No Partner!” (Copyright: Ehud Barak.)

Therefore it is important that Abu Mazen be elected, and elected by a large majority.

He has to be given a chance. Not only he personally, but the whole approach he represents: the belief that without suicide attacks and the armed Intifada, the Palestinians can now achieve their minimal national goals: a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Green Line border (with possible small exchanges of territory), Jerusalem as capital of the two states, evacuation of the settlements and an agreement on a practical solution to the refugee problem.

Perhaps that is a naive belief. Perhaps it has no chance at all, perhaps it is actually the Palestinians who “have no partner”. But it is important for the Palestinians–and the entire world–to put this belief to the test. After a year, by the end of 2005, it will be possible to draw conclusions–and then the time will be ripe for the great debate among the Palestinians. If Abu Mazen is able to show impressive achievements – he will win. If not, the Third Intifada will probably break out.

This Palestinian debate will be the great opportunity for Marwan Barghouti to take part and to present his own approach. Until then, I believe, he will be well advised to support Abu Mazen. After all, he himself thought so until this week.

Do the hopes of Abu Mazen have a real basis?

This week, the President of Egypt, Husni Mubarak, advised the Palestinians to put their trust in Sharon. He can make peace, he said, discreetly adding “If he wants to.”

Mubarak’s interests are clear. Every year he gets a huge subsidy from the United States, a donation that is vital for the stability of his regime. Funding this depends on the United States Congress, which is called by malicious tongues “Israeli Occupied Territory”. It is in his interest to be friendly with Sharon and help him out in his present predicament.

Sharon is in the middle of a delicate political maneuver. He has kicked out the Shinui party, his only remaining coalition partner, from the government. The huge and powerful Central Committee of his party will not allow him to set up a purely “secular” coalition with Shinui and the Labor Party, so he has to bring in the Ultra-Orthodox instead of Shinui.

Now he resembles a circus trapeze artist who has let go of one bar and, flying through the air, has to grab hold of another. There are many in his own party who are trying to push the other bar away, so that he will crash to the ground and break his neck.

If Sharon does not succeed, there will be elections. This means that for many months the whole political system will be paralyzed, the “disengagement” from Gaza will not take place, peace will be off the agenda. That could mean the end of Abu Mazen’s political career.

If, on the other hand, Sharon gets his new coalition with the Labor Party and the Ultra-Orthodox, and buys the consent of the Ultra-Orthodox to his “disengagement” plan, it will be the start of an obstacle race. Will the government succeed in mobilizing the public for a withdrawal from the whole of the Gaza Strip? Will it be able to remove the settlers without bloodshed? Will it give up the “Philadelphi axis” that cuts the Strip off from the world? Will it agree to the reopening of Gaza Port and the airport? Will it provide “safe passage” between the Strip and the West Bank? (That was a main plank of the Oslo agreement, consistently violated by all Israeli governments since.)

All these are a short sprint compared to the Marathon of the West Bank. It is an open secret that Sharon concocted the “disengagement plan” not only in order to rid himself of the responsibility for the million and a quarter Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, but mainly so he could quietly annex 58% of the West Bank. Will he give up this dream?

Optimists believe that the withdrawal from Gaza–if it does indeed take place, God willing–will engender a dynamic of its own. There is a “Window of Opportunity”. After Sharon and Bush demonized Yasser Arafat for years and exploited the orchestrated hatred in order to sabotage any step towards peace, this alibi has now disappeared, along with the Palestinian leader himself. Also, Bush will want to use his last term of office to achieve something significant. Same for Shimon Peres. World public opinion will demand it. Europe will get involved. Sharon may be swept along by the current he himself has created. As the old Jewish saying goes: “If God wills it, even a broomstick can shoot!”

Others are much more pessimistic. They point to Sharon’s legendary stubbornness. He will postpone talking about the West Bank until after the implementation of his Gaza plan. That will bring us to the end of 2005. The year after, 2006, will be devoted to the Israeli elections. And so forth. In the meantime, he creates “facts on the ground”.

Who are right, the optimists or the pessimists? In truth, nobody can foresee today what will happen. It depends on many factors, including the Israeli peace camp. It goes without saying that we shall cooperate with any Palestinian leadership elected by its people, and it is not for us to interfere in this process.

A year will pass before we will know whether there is indeed a “window of opportunity”–or just a widow of opportunity.

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

URI AVNERY is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch’s book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

Weekend Edition
May 25, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
A Major Win for Trump’s War Cabinet
Andrew Levine
Could Anything Cause the GOP to Dump Trump?
Pete Tucker
Is the Washington Post Soft on Amazon?
Conn Hallinan
Iran: Sanctions & War
Jeffrey St. Clair
Out of Space: John McCain, Telescopes and the Desecration of Mount Graham
John Laforge
Senate Puts CIA Back on Torture Track
David Rosen
Santa Fe High School Shooting: an Incel Killing?
Gary Leupp
Pompeo’s Iran Speech and the 21 Demands
Jonathan Power
Bang, Bang to Trump
Robert Fisk
You Can’t Commit Genocide Without the Help of Local People
Brian Cloughley
Washington’s Provocations in the South China Sea
Louis Proyect
Requiem for a Mountain Lion
Robert Fantina
The U.S. and Israel: a Match Made in Hell
Kevin Martin
The Libya Model: It’s Not Always All About Trump
Susie Day
Trump, the NYPD and the People We Call “Animals”
Pepe Escobar
How Iran Will Respond to Trump
Sarah Anderson
When CEO’s Earn 5,000 Times as Much as a Company’s Workers
Ralph Nader
Audit the Outlaw Military Budget Draining America’s Necessities
Chris Wright
The Significance of Karl Marx
David Schultz
Indict or Not: the Choice Mueller May Have to Make and Which is Worse for Trump
George Payne
The NFL Moves to Silence Voices of Dissent
Razan Azzarkani
America’s Treatment of Palestinians Has Grown Horrendously Cruel
Katalina Khoury
The Need to Evaluate the Human Constructs Enabling Palestinian Genocide
George Ochenski
Tillerson, the Truth and Ryan Zinke’s Interior Department
Jill Richardson
Our Immigration Debate Needs a Lot More Humanity
Martha Rosenberg
Once Again a Slaughterhouse Raid Turns Up Abuses
Judith Deutsch
Pension Systems and the Deadly Hand of the Market
Shamus Cooke
Oregon’s Poor People’s Campaign and DSA Partner Against State Democrats
Thomas Barker
Only a Mass Struggle From Below Can End the Bloodshed in Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
Australia’s China Syndrome
Missy Comley Beattie
Say “I Love You”
Ron Jacobs
A Photographic Revenge
Saurav Sarkar
War and Moral Injury
Clark T. Scott
The Shell Game and “The Bank Dick”
Seth Sandronsky
The State of Worker Safety in America
Thomas Knapp
Making Gridlock Great Again
Manuel E. Yepe
The US Will Have to Ask for Forgiveness
Laura Finley
Stop Blaming Women and Girls for Men’s Violence Against Them
Rob Okun
Raising Boys to Love and Care, Not to Kill
Christopher Brauchli
What Conflicts of Interest?
Winslow Myers
Real Security
George Wuerthner
Happy Talk About Weeds
Abel Cohen
Give the People What They Want: Shame
David Yearsley
King Arthur in Berlin
Douglas Valentine
Memorial Day
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail