issues.oz

Isaac and Ishmael, Brother Against Brother

Here is a quick question. What is the value of a proposal for democratic reform that implicitly prohibits the election of a particular individual? The answer? A useless, self-defeating one. One that claims to espouse democratic principles and then shows a careless disregard for all the things that make democracy worthwhile.

Yet this is the nature of the proposal that George W Bush has put forward for the democratisation of the Palestinian Liberation Authority (PLO), and as his plan goes, peace in Israel. Bush has said that unless there is a democratic change of leadership in the PLO that America will wash its hands of the Palestinian people. Let's ignore the fact that calling for a democracy, yet giving orders on who will and won't run that democracy is absurd. Let's concentrate for a second on the possibility of broad-based elections in the PLO, and what that might mean.

Who would vote in these proposed elections?

Anyone that identifies as being Palestinian, and that lives in Israel and its occupied territories? No, because that would ignore the many Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and other neighbouring territories.

Would you let anyone that identifies as being "Palestinian" vote? No, because then you would have everyone in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt calling themselves Palestinian in the hope of being allowed to influence the outcome of the election.

Would you give everyone that lives within the West Bank and Gaza Strip the opportunity to vote? No, because that would include Jewish settlers in the West Bank who are definitely not represented by the PLO. This option would also ignore Palestinians living on the Jerusalem side of the green line and Palestinians living throughout the Middle East.

The reality is that Palestine is not a state, the PLO is not a government, and those that identify as being Palestinians are living all over Israel and the Middle East. The definition of who is Palestinian (and therefore represented by the PLO) and who is not, is fuzzy, and much too hard to police. So democratic elections for a position like leader of the PLO would be a difficult proposition at best. At worst a nightmare of impossibilities.

Even if these obstacles could be overcome, Bush can not even be certain that Arafat would be deposed as leader. In fact, dollars to donuts that Arafat would be overwhelmingly voted back in as leader of the PLO. There are other possibilities, but they don't offer much hope to Bush either. Palestinians might decide that Arafat is not getting the job done quickly enough and vote in terrorists of an even higher calibre then Arafat. It would be a catastrophe if an election that America pushed for were won by someone from Hamas. It would set the peace process back by decades.

The last possibility for PLO elections, and a remote one at that, is that the Palestinian people will of their own accord, elect a more moderate leader to represent them. The odds of that happening are about London to a brick. Is it any wonder why that will never happen? Because Palestinians support PLO sponsored terrorism against Israel. Because terrorism in Israel is a grass roots movement. Palestinians are not going to vote for PLO leadership that is less inclined to strap C4 to Arab teenagers. They're much more likely to vote for leadership that is even more inclined, to send explosive teenagers into busy Jerusalem pool halls. Until Israel and America address that fact, little progress will be made towards peace. They can have as much democracy as they want, they can have fresh elections every day... but unless they do something about placating the Palestinian people, they will continue to come up against hardliners like Arafat or, dare I say it, worse. The reality is that Arafat is immensely popular amongst Palestinians. He is, despite the lack of democratic process in the PLO, the chosen leader of the Palestinian people. Bush and Sharon would do well to accept the devil they know.

So what then? What is the best way forward? Certainly not with democracy. Democracy can wait. It has already been very well demonstrated that democracy is not inclined to produce leaders adept at producing peace. Ariel Sharon was democratically elected, and he's hardly likely to win the Nobel peace prize any time soon. So why does America think that democracy in the PLO will produce any better results than it did when it produced the right-wing butcher from Likud? What the Middle East needs are men less inclined to resort to bombs and guns...on both sides. While Arafat and Sharon continue their hardline populist approach to the problem, the problem will grow. Democracy, in this sort of environment, is inclined to produce radical hardliners that promise "stability", but bring only fresh violence.

Up until now, my attitude has been fairly pro-palestine. So let me now make some concessions to the Israel side. Arafat is a terrorist. This latest move from the White House, to have Arafat sidelined from politics in Israel, was borne of information that Bush received from Israeli intelligence. Damning information that demonstrated that Arafat directly signed off on $40,000 to the Al-Asqua Martyrs Brigade, an offshoot organization of Arafat's Fatah movement, which has claimed responsibility for a number of recent bombings of Israeli citizens.

So Arafat is a terrorist. That he says one thing in English, and then another thing entirely in Arabic is now well accepted. When Israel tells Arafat to rein in terror from sister organizations such as Hamas, Arafat or his Information Minister, respond with claims that the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) has crippled PLO Security forces, leaving it incapable of reining in Palestinian militant groups. This is at best a cop out... at worst a lie. Arafat could stop or at least stem the terror if he truly wanted to, and put all his resources into doing so. Even if claims that his security services are incapacitated are true, he could at least use his immense influence in the Middle East, to do something about stopping the terrorism. He could be actively telling Arabs through his popular West Bank radio station something like: "Hey my fellow countrymen.... terrorism is not cool. In the end terrorism will be our destruction... not our freedom as I have been telling you up until now." But he does no such thing. Instead he tells reporters in English that the PLO denounces terrorism, while staying silent on the matter in his speeches given in Arabic.

However, having said all that let me say this. The fact that Arafat is a terrorist is inconsequential. What is important is that Arafat, just like Sharon, is far too inclined to revert to violence to achieve his goals. I don't want to get embroiled in a discussion of Western perceptions of "terrorism". Suffice for me to say that, when somebody is murdered that is an abhorrent thing. It doesn't matter if that person is a woman, man or child. It doesn't matter if that person is a soldier, civilian or terrorist. A casualty of war is a casualty of war. The tragedy is huge on its own. It's no less tragic, no more tragic because it was a civilian or a solider, or a terrorist, or a soldier in his capacity as a civilian or a civilian preparing to go out and blow himself up, all that matters is that the casualties are high on both sides and totally unacceptable .

So what needs to happen?

1. Both sides need to talk. Talk until they can talk no more. Talk until they and their interpreters are weak with fatigue. But just talk. It's not reasonable for Israel to say that there will be no talks until the terrorism ends. The talking has to be immediate and unconditional. It is a part of the antiquated Western notions of terrorism to say that talks can never be held with terrorists. Sometimes talking is the only thing left to do, and sometimes terrorists are the only people left with whom to talk. It's harder to kill a man when you're looking him in the face and talking to him.

2. Israel should start making concessions. Sharon needs to put an end to the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. He should also put Ehud Barak's Camp David proposals back on the table. The fact that Arafat may or may not be interested is immaterial...Sharon needs to take a softer more conciliatory line with the Palestinians if, in the eyes of the international community, he wants to legitimise his defensive incursions into the West Bank. Israel needs to acknowledge that they owe something to the Palestinian people: that until they square up and settle their obligations to the Palestinian people, until they offer an independent state of Palestine, that the terror campaign will always be justified in the eyes of regular Palestinians and that so long as that is the case, the terror will continue. The only way to show terrorist groups up as the villains they are is to remove their chance to claim legitimacy for their terrorist activities.

This point seems unlikely to meet realisation. Sharon's Likud party recently voted against the establishment of a Palestinian state - ever. Sharon claims to be open to the idea of a Palestinian state some time in the future. Still the fact remains that the party to which he owes his political allegiance has categorically refused the establishment of a Palestinian state now or at any time in the future.

3. The UN needs to get involved in positive ways. For a long time the West has been sending money to the PLO in the hope that it would go towards building the institutions fundamental to peace, stability and statehood: education, government, police etc. Yet it seems increasingly clear that the money is being spent on explosives and propaganda. The latter being used to convince teenagers to strap the former to their chests and detonate it on Buses. So the UN needs to come into the West Bank and Gaza and see to it that aid money gets spent where it ought to. On training a legitimate police force. On education for Palestinian children. On developing and encouraging free and open media institutions in the West Bank. On encouraging news and current affairs media that comes from both sides of the green line and reaches both sides of the green line.

Israel would do well to understand that it's not wise to be dragged down to the same level as terrorists. They should acknowledge the things they can afford to concede to terrorists without compromising on their core security, stability and statehood requirements. Despite Arafat's insistence on violence, it wouldn't hurt the Israelis to allow statehood to the Palestinian people. Despite Arafat's insistence on violence it wouldn't hurt the Israelis to allow the right of return to Palestinians in the same way they allow it of Jews (either that or scrap the ROR altogether). It wouldn't hurt the Israeli's to make special concessions regarding the Jerusalem question, arranging somehow to allow non-Israeli Muslims access to important religious sites in Jerusalem.

Israel will continue its downward spiral of destruction, until both sides learn a few important lessons: that if they want peace, they will need to trade off something in return. If Jews and Muslims can get along better in the holy land, then that may just be the litmus test for whether all people, whatever name they give to God and however they choose to worship, can get along together in the rest of the world: a particularly important question for our generation.