|
New
Delhi, 17
January 2005
It is
not only Bush and Tony Blair that have a direct
interest in the peace process between PLO and Israel
but the whole world because Iraq is getting into
such a big mess that the world economy and stability
may well suffer. The UN resolutions on Palestine
have been flouted and a US Secretary quoted in Time
Magazine stated that without the US, the UN has no
meaning. Common sense defies us to predict the
future in Iraq and we wonder how free and fair
elections can be held in Iraq. Sistani’s Shiite
aide has been murdered. Few realise that Iran is a
key player in the game, as Iraq's Saddam was
earlier, and if Mark Thatcher can play politics in
South Africa then we can be sure many more too are
doing the same in Iraq.
Arafat
died a multi millionaire but Palestinians are a poor
lot and Abbas hopes to get more money for the PLO
and reduce the power of Hamas and Hezbullah. The
Sunni–Shia divide is severe in Iraq and India with
Sunnis and Shias and our friend Iran, with more
Shias have a direct interest in the peace process
for stability in this region. India's defence ties
with Israel are very strong and so Indian leaders
would have to be soft on Israel. And Israel is a
nuclear power. Hence we post below an edited piece
from Jodhpur University, which aptly analyses the
situation.
Abbas
vs. Arafat — Future of Peace Process: A Balance
Sheet
Dr.
Alok Kumar Gupta & Kartikeya Saran*
Yasser
Arafat’s death is said to have removed a great
obstacle in the way of peace in the Middle East. His
policies, allegedly, left Palestine crippled, with
the people resorting to terrorist activities to earn
a living. The recently concluded Presidential
election on January 9, 2005 held after almost nine
years, has raised high hopes among the world
community in general and Arab–Israel
Community in particular. The election of Mahmoud
Abbas (Abu Mazen) as the President of the
Palestinian Authority (PA) by securing a
comprehensive victory over his closest opponent
Mustafa Barghouti, who secured about 19.7% votes, as
against Abbas, who secured about 66.3% of the votes,
had a special significance as it marked the end of
Yasser Arafat’s reign over Palestine.
As
Mahmoud Abbas takes the seat of the Palestinian
President, it would be worth reflecting upon some of
the policies of Yasser Arafat, and how he proved to
be a hindrance in the peace process, as against the
often claimed more moderate policies of Abbas. This
can be inferred from the new President’s initial
reactions to the existing problems.
Policies of Yasser Arafat
-
He was termed by Israel and the US as being a
‘terrorist’, who welcomed peace process, but
not genuine peace. Despite showing that he was
committed towards containing terrorist
activities, he never stopped the use of weapons,
and only prolonged any negotiations which came
in the way. This resulted in the gradual
repulsion of world sympathy that Palestine once
had.
-
Arafat was criticized for having double
standards. Whenever he made speeches in English
to an International audience he showed signals
of peace towards Israel. On the other hand, in
his own land and in his own mother tongue
Arabic, he spoke of ‘martyrdom’, and
encouraged the Palestinians to get back their
territory from Israel at all costs.
-
He stuck to his slogan of “revolution until
victory”, violating many agreements with
Israel and the other Arab states. The Black
September of 1970, in which he and his followers
were driven out of Jordan, allegedly when their
plan of overthrowing King Hussein failed. It is
alleged, even after pledging not to interfere in
Lebanese affairs, he triggered the uprising
which led to the Lebanese Civil War.
-
Arafat seems to have never wanted to negotiate a
final agreement, as agreeing to genuine peace
would have required concessions from his side,
possibly resulting in loss of popularity amongst
the masses. This popularity formed the base of
his power, and he seemed to prefer power more
than anything else, which ultimately made peace
impossible in the region.
-
The few agreements which he did enter into were
signed because he, as an individual, gained more
from them than he lost. The Oslo Peace process
(1993) gave him sole leadership of Palestine,
and he gained repute amongst the Palestinians.
This helped him regain power in Gaza. He signed
the Oslo treaty only after Israel made several
concessions, including the recognition of the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the
removal of Israeli troops from Palestinian
regions. However, when it came to entering into
a final negotiation, he rejected proposals at
the July 2000 Camp David Summit, without
offering any counterproposals. Instead he
launched the second “intifada”, which caused
great death and destruction in the region,
dashing any hopes of peace.
-
Corruption charges against him resulted in
international donors becoming hesitant to
provide funds to improve Palestine's economy.
This only increased the prevalence of
anti-social activities in the region.
Policies of Mahmoud Abbas
-
Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate, who has always
condemned militant activities by the
Palestinians. Arafat appointed him Prime
Minister, but because of his disapproval of
Arafat’s policies of terrorist activism on a
number of occasions, Abbas was removed from the
Prime Minister’s post.
-
Abbas believes that the only way to achieve
Palestinian goals is through peaceful
negotiations. These goals, have never been
looked upon seriously. Abbas, while addressing
the public, said: “We choose peace
negotiations as the path toward our rights. We
do not want more than our rights.” Such an
attitude is what the international community has
been wanting for a long time, as it gives
positive signals of ‘peace in waiting’ in
the region.
-
Abbas’ call for peace and removal of corruption
has attracted international donations, which
amount to nearly US $1 billion per annum. This
is an important step towards the development of
Palestine.
-
Abbas has criticized Palestinian attacks on
Israel, calling them counterproductive, and a
great hindrance to the development of the
region. According to him “militarizing” the
‘intifada’ was a “historic mistake” that
resulted in more damage to the Palestinians than
to the Israelis.
-
On being elected as President, Abbas showed
immediate willingness to talk peace with Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at any place. Along
with that he expressed that he will try his best
to stop the activism by Palestinian militants
against the Israelis in the Gaza strip, as soon
as possible. This gesture has been greatly
appreciated by US President, George Bush, who
considers Mahmoud Abbas as being a person who is
genuinely interested in peace talks, and has
invited him to the White House in the near
future.
-
Abbas has projected trust in the power of
political instruments for resolving conflict
rather that on war. He made it clear just after
the proclamation of his victory by saying, “I
will work to put an end to the suffering of the
Palestinian people for they are a people who
deserve our esteem, our respect and our
loyalty.”
Reflections
of USA
US
President George Bush while congratulating Abbas,
exclaimed that he wanted to see a free Palestinian
state by the end of his second term. He also
stressed about having peace in the region, along
with an improvement in the economy of the area.
According to US administrative officials, there
might be a $250 million increase in the annual
donation to Palestine. The World Bank called for a
doubling of the sum of $1 billion, which comes as
aid from all over the world.
Reactions
of Israel
Israeli
Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, expressed his
willingness to renew cooperation with the
Palestinians but with a rider that Abbas will be
judged by the way he combats terrorism and
dismantles militant groups.
Sharon’s
‘Gaza pullout’ plan aims at ‘pulling out’
the 7,500 Jews in the Gaza Strip. He won a slender
58–56
majority, and gained Parliamentary approval for a
new Cabinet line-up that gives him a working
majority to implement his controversial Gaza pullout
plan. Abbas is scheduled to attend a conference in
London in March 2005, to bolster reform plans and
channel fresh funding of up to $8 billion, which
would be needed to help regenerate Gaza.
Challenges
Before Abbas
Though
Abbas is seen as a man to do business with, he also
has pressure to stop terrorist activities by
the Palestinians, especially in the Gaza strip. A
spokesman for the Hamas militant group, Sami Abu
Zuhri, said it would seek to reach “common
understandings” with Mr Abbas, but added,
“Resistance to occupation will continue and that
includes shelling attacks. This is natural.” Thus,
Abbas’ will have to battle Palestinian
militants to reach any peace agreement with Israel.
The militants wasted no time putting Abbas to his
first test, firing several rockets and mortar bombs
into Jewish enclaves in southern Gaza and into an
Israeli border town, causing damage but no
casualties.
Prospects for Future and Imperatives for India
The
death of Arafat and subsequent election of Abbas to
Presidency has created a high level of optimism, and
consequently an enhanced responsibility for the new
incumbent. The great lesson that Abbas requires to
learn from his experiences with Arafat is evident
here, “let not the history of double-standards
repeat itself”. This is because during the election campaign, Abbas
embraced Palestinian militants, and promised to
shield them from Israeli forces. Many feel that by
doing this he might make his own way to peace
tougher, as this would not encourage curtailment of
terrorism in any way.
Therefore, undue optimism must be avoided. Neither Palestinians nor
Israelis have shown signs of compromise on
fundamental disputes in last many decades of
conflict — borders, the future status of
Jerusalem, and redress for millions of Palestinian
refugees. United States also requires to play a
highly constructive role towards brokering durable
peace. The recent assurance of Bush that Israel will
not have to cede large West Bank settlements might
result in the undermining of Abbas and threat to
future negotiation for peace. This indeed is not a
very hopeful beginning.
Presumably, the election of Abbas might not be as positive a
development for Israel, and Sharon, as it seems,
because for years, Sharon has been impressing upon
the world community that Arafat is the main obstacle
to peace. Now that Palestine has a moderate
President, the world community has high expectations
that Israel must move forward in the interest of
both the communities, Israeli and Palestinian.
However, this presents a doubtful scenario because Israel prefers
land to peace. Jimmy Carter, former President of the
US, who played a major role as an election observer
in the recent election observed, “The one who is
opposing the major principle of the road map is the
Prime Minister of Israel”, and now Israel will
have to move forward with the road-map, again an
entity which they had been avoiding for quite
sometime. It is expected that Sharon will have to
make these moves because of the international
pressure likely to be applied on Israel, mainly by
the US.
Sharon’s fears also include the fact that once democracy is
established in Palestine, Bush will have achieved a
major objective. Thus, Palestine might become the
Bush favourite, resulting in US aid to them, and
subsequently a free Palestinian state. Not to
mention the decline in strategic importance of
Israel for the US. Thus, the future has a lot in
store for the Middle East. It is upon the leaders of
Israel and Palestine to make the path, and hence
determine the faith of the region.
India,
as a harbinger of peace in the world, too has a
positive role to play in the coming days if it
claims a permanent seat at the Security Council.
India, like Norway, could prop up its diplomatic
resources to have a niche for itself in the eyes of
international community. This is expected from a
country with the second largest population and
seventh biggest territory in the world, and is in
the process of enhancing its international
personality. India has an advantage because there is
now a moderate President in Palestine who is
awaiting help to achieve peace.
*(Dr.
A.K Gupta is Lecturer, Faculty of Policy Sciences,
National Law University, Jodhpur and Mr. Kartikeya
Saran is a student at the same University)
|