11-04-04

THE PASSING OF ARAFAT WILL IGNITE POWER STRUGGLE

Dennis Ross was the chief Middle East peace negotiator for the United States during the Clinton administration. He is the author of "The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004) and acounselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

By Dennis Ross

WASHINGTON -- Yasser Arafat's presence in a Paris hospital signals that an era is coming to an end. He has defined the Palestinian movement since the 1960s.

Like it or not, Arafat has been an icon for Palestinians. In their eyes, he was the one who succeeded in putting the Palestinian cause on the global stage, and ensuring that Palestinian national aspirations could not be ignored. He was the one who resisted Arab leaders seeking to manipulate the Palestinians for their own ends. He was the one who defied those, like the United States and Israel, who Palestinians believe humiliate them and deny them their rights. And, he was the one who succeeded in creating at least a semblance of unity among a people always divided by clan, tribe, region and ideology.

It matters little how much of the Arafat legacy is myth and how much is reality. In truth, Arafat always succeeded far more as a symbol than as a leader. As a symbol, he only had to excite passions; as a leader, he had to make hard decisions and choices, and he was far more decision avoider than maker. But it is the symbol of Arafat that will be missed. For most Palestinians, he was the symbol -- the emblem -- of their movement. And relatively soon, he may be only a memory.

Even his strongest Palestinian critics, who believe that Arafat provides Palestinians a past and not a future, know that there will be a void without him. Emotionally, a father figure for the movement will be gone. Practically, he was the lone figure of authority and even if he chose to do little to prevent chaos and anarchy in the West Bank and Gaza, he certainly was the one figure who could have done something about it.

It is the absence of a figure of authority that invites a power vacuum;there is almost certainly going to be a struggle for power in Arafat's aftermath. But, here, there is also irony. Precisely because Palestinians fear a violent struggle, there will be an internal dialogue among different factions within Fatah -- Arafat's organization -- and between Fatah and groups such as Hamas. And, in all likelihood, there will be an agreement to preserve stability and avoid conflict,at least for an interim period. Perhaps, there will be a collective leadership involving Abu Mazen as secretary general of the PLO, Abu Ala as prime minister, and Rawhi Fattouh,the currentspeaker of the Legislative Council.

But others, including Hamas, will have some say in what unfolds. The problem with any such arrangement is that it will mask the leadership vacuum and not resolve it. It will provide no legitimacy for making difficult decisions. Will such a leadership based on unpublicized understandings be able to manage Palestinian responsibilities as Israel withdraws from Gaza? Could such a leadership mandate a real ceasefire so that the Israeli withdrawal could be carried out in an atmosphere of calm and not one of violence? Will Hamas go along, given its desire to foster the impression that it forced the Israelis to withdraw?

Hamas may not want to go along with any decision that mandates an end to violence. But it is far more likely to do so if the decision comes from a leadership that has been elected.

Elections will invest a new leadership with legitimacy. Indeed, the only way a successor to Arafat is likely to have legitimacy and authority is if that leader is elected. Succession managed through a private dialogue between different factions may be necessary to preserve stability for a transitional period and make it possible to hold elections. But absent the Palestinian public feeling they have had a say in who emerges after Arafat, no leader is likely to feel secure or legitimate.

Palestinian reformers have been emphasizing the need for elections for some time. They have pushed them in Fatah as a way of challenging Arafat and the old guard's way of doing business. Though Arafat initially opposed such elections, he eventually realized he could not stop them and they were held in Gaza. Similarly, reformers pushed for holding elections in the municipalities. Again, Arafat was not enthusiastic, but the reformers in the cabinet, like Jamal Shobaki and Kadoura Fares, insisted and received the backing of the Legislative Council, and municipal elections will be held beginning in December.

Clearly,reformers have looked at the elections as a way to create authority independent of Arafat. But the desire for elections goes well beyond only the reformers; the Palestinian public wants them. Even though the environment on the ground makes it very difficult to reach regional registration centers, already 67percent of Palestinians eligible to vote have registered.

Ironically, though Arafat has been anything but a democrat in life, his incapacitation or death may pave the way for a meaningful elections process. Even if Arafat recovers well enough to be part of the landscape for the time being, now is the time for the United States to begin to emphasize the importance of proceeding with Palestinian elections.

There is one other virtue of holding elections: It will provide a good basis for Israelis and Palestinians to resume a dialogue. Those responsible for planning and holding the elections should be talking with the Israeli military,given the Israel Defense Forces'presence and operations in the territories. Coordinating on where the IDF will be, what it will do and not do, and what Palestinians will do and not do, must take place if the elections are to be held. Should the United Statesalso begin to coordinate between Israelis and Palestinians in advance of the Israeli disengagement from Gaza and the northern West Bank, such a dialogue could restore a basis for ending the daily conflict and resuming a political process.

Here again an irony: Engaging Palestinians as they begin to focus on how they will govern themselves in Arafat's absence may not only be important for Palestinian stability but also for defusing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

(c) 2004, Global Viewpoint
Distributed by Tribune Media Services, INC. (Distributed 11/4/04)