Barry Rubin reviews the state of Palestinian politics. Still only part of the problem, still pushing only terrorism.
THE REGION: Advancing backwards
By BARRY RUBIN
Is Palestinian politics becoming more flexible and moderate? Regrettably, no
To get a sense of the current state of Palestinian politics, let's examine three points: the uses to which US aid is put, the masses' attitudes, and some key recent pronouncements of Yasser Arafat.
First, consider a revelation by Fiaz Jabar, one of the main individuals responsible for questioning, torturing and murdering those accused of collaborating with Israel, in a September 8 interview with National Public Radio.
Interrogations, Jabar says, are conducted, by "learned people, highly trained and qualified. They're even trained by Ame-ricans and Eur-opeans to lead these interrogations. The interrogation was carried out in a very civilized and modern way, the American way."
This overlooked statement raises a rather important question: Is US and European training for Palestinian security officers being used to improve terrorists' skills and for extreme human rights' violations?
What makes this issue especially timely is the fact that the US is now starting a new round of training for 150 officers. Many of them are from the General Intelligence service, whose leader, Tawfik Tirawi, is wanted by Israel for his own involvement in funding terrorism.
Documents captured earlier in Arafat's compound show that Tirawi's men and other security officials helped terrorists avoid capture, or were actually involved in attacks.
This follows the fact, discovered by Palestinian Media Watch, that a Palestinian high school funded with US aid money was named in honor of a suicide bomber. When one is dealing with an unreliable partner, aid efforts aimed at moderating the situation are likely to backfire.
Second, a July-August Bir-Zeit University poll of West Bank/Gaza attitudes shows the lack of a mass base for political reform.
Asked if the planned elections would be fair, respondents said no by a 47-34 percent margin. They also doubted elections would bring significant changes in the current leadership, reform in governing institutions, or improve their lives.
Two other factors are especially noteworthy. While Palestinians say they would vote overwhelmingly against current Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) members, by a remarkable 60-15 percent margin the same people insist they would vote for Arafat by a 54-31 percent margin.
In short, the far less popular institution is the one supposedly pushing for more democracy, and Arafat would certainly win the elections, even if they were conducted fairly.
Equally unpopular are those outside forces seen as sponsoring reform. By large majorities, most Palestinians believe that their institutions should not accept US government aid (though they back taking funds from American private organizations), that the US is only urging reform to suit its own interests, and that the Palestinian Authority is only pretending to be making reforms because of US and Israeli pressure.
There was a lot of international coverage of Arafat's September 9 speech to the PLC, but some of the most significant details received little attention. Since this was Arafat's most significant statement in a long time, even now it deserves closer scrutiny:
While Arafat frequently uses Koranic quotations in speeches to show his religiosity, he has been steadily increasing their frequency. This is presumably to gain support from Hamas, because Arafat senses a more Islamist mood among his people, and is also more dominated at present by his mystical bent toward thinking continued struggle will produce a miraculous victory, with compromise unthinkable.
A nasty joke by Arafat is also revealing. Making a passing reference to one activist, he turned to PLC chairman Abu Ala and remarked, "Unlike you, he did perform the pilgrimage."
This totally gratuitous slight was meant to put Abu Ala in his place. The PLC's head, and by implication the body that just reelected him, does not merit Arafat's respect.
Like all Arafat's speeches lately - even if they contain a formal reference to supporting peace with Israel - the tone was very inciteful. In substantive terms, there was no sign of moderation or flexibility.
The two years of fighting have only been due to a "fierce war which was declared by the Israeli government against our Palestinian people to break their will and prevent them from enjoying freedom and independence in their independent Palestinian state."
If Arafat has no responsibility for the war and its continuation, why does he need to do anything to end it?
While denouncing the September 11 attack on the US, Arafat's main analysis is that it let "the occupier and aggressor government of Israel" take advantage of the resulting situation in order to commit terrorism on the Palestinians.
If the Palestinians never commit terrorism themselves, why does Arafat need to do anything to stop it?
Arafat's formal condemnation of attacks within Israel come only in the context of denying Israel an excuse "to strike, destroy, kill, assassinate, lay siege, impose collective punishment and violate international law, and to brush aside all agreements between us."
Arafat has often rewritten Palestinian history, but in some ways the following passage sets a new record:
"Our people suffered one of the most painful tragedies in history when they were driven out of their homeland and when the international circumstances and developments did not help them establish their independent state, as stipulated in UN General Assembly's Resolution 181."
Arafat, the man who did everything possible to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state if it required giving up a claim to all of Israel for more than 40 years - and arguably 54 years - after 1948 was himself one of the main "international circumstances" responsible for the fact that no such state has been created to this day, and probably will not be for some years to come.
jpost.com |
