News of significant deterioration of the health of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has filled print news and airwaves for the last two weeks. As he is being treated in France, it is evident that whether or not Mr. Arafat survives the current setback to his health, he is no longer in charge as the president of the Palestinian Authority.
As he battled illness, he lost consciousness for a while last week. Doctors believe this had serious effects on his mental capacity. While many would like to predict otherwise, Arafat’s departure from power or life is unlikely to have any substantial impact on the discourse of Palestinian politics or the dynamics of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Several reports and analysis predict a struggle for power in Palestine, which may mount to a civil war. Such a scenario is highly unlikely simply due to the unimportance of the position Arafat held.
Having been confined by the Israeli army to his Ramallah compound for nearly three years, he had little more authority in Ramallah than the leader Fatah (Arafat’s political party) did in any neighboring town. The persisting Israeli military occupation and what imposes in walls, curfews and checkpoints effectively turned the West bank into disconnected cantons. The rule, as a result, has become too decentralized and provincial, and the PA’s influence diminished significantly. Though Arafat sat atop three of the four main institutions that govern the Palestinian civil life, those who may seek to fill his seat are likely to be those who currently serve as “seconds to Arafat.” New leadership for the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and the Palestinian National Council (Congress in Exile) is likely to emerge from the top ranks of each. The fourth institution, the Palestinian Parliament, is ruled by the person who, according to the constitution, is supposed to replace Arafat in the case of death, until elections are held in 60 days. The current speaker of the parliament, however, lacks the authority to fill the position.
On the other hand, influential factions other than Fatah will sit the race out, as they prefer to avoid being seen as fighting for power as opposed to liberation, as well as for their recognition of the insignificance of the position.
Arafat had no influence over the current Intifada (uprising). On several occasions, he attempted to put an end to Palestinian armed struggle. The systematic destruction of the Palestinian security forces by the Israeli army over the first two years of the Intifada, however, has rendered the PA impotent in terms of influencing the dynamics of the conflict. Therefore, like his presence, his absence is unlikely to redirect the current chapter of the conflict.
Israeli and U.S. administrations face a more serious test as a result of Arafat’s absence. For years, the Israelis have painted Arafat as an unfit partner for peace and refused to negotiate with him. The Bush administration has conveniently adopted Sharon’s argument and used it an excuse for lack of effort toward arriving at a peace agreement.
Sharon’s allegations against Arafat are part of an elaborate plan to preempt a peace agreement that may lead to the creation of a Palestinian state. The plan involved denying the presence of a partner for negotiations as an excuse for a series of unilateral steps to redefine realities on the ground. He stretched a wall for hundreds of miles into the West Bank, constricting its population into less than half of its area and annexing the rest. The other part of the plan, however, involved the withdrawal from maintaining the Gaza Strip under a complete siege.
Sharon’s foreign minister told the daily newspaper Haaretz last month that the Gaza disengagement plan was designed to preempt the creation of Palestinian state.
George Bush, with a new mandate in the oval office, cannot afford to ignore the Palestine-Israeli conflict any longer, nor will he have the excuse of no partner for peace on the Palestinian side. It is expected that either Ahmed Qurea or Mahmoud Abbas will assume the leadership position in the PA, both of which were welcomed by the Bush administration, though the United States did absolutely nothing to help strengthen their political standing during brawls with Arafat. It is even evident that some lingering time is necessary to find a peace partner on the Israeli side.
A new, immediate diplomatic effort toward the Middle East must start by requiring the Israelis to withdraw troops from Palestinian towns and dismantling of checkpoints that restrict the movement of students, workers and medical teams. Such steps will serve to strengthen the new Palestinian leader’s position and make him more empowered to negotiate on behalf of his people. The ball is now in Bush’s court.
Fayyad Sbaihat ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in chemical engineering.
