John Rapley - FOREIGN FOCUS UNITED STATES President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon refused to speak with him. Not surprisingly, therefore, after Yasser Arafat's death, Mr. Bush commented optimistically about the future of the Middle East peace process.
The American position is that the U.S. will only deal with a Palestinian leader who is determined to stamp out terrorism, and that Mr. Arafat was not that man. Officially, that is also the Israeli position. Yet few doubt that Mr. Sharon has other motives as well, and would probably prefer a unilateral settlement of the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict to a negotiated one.
Nevertheless, he will probably have to stand aside as the Palestinians prepare for election of a new leader in early January. President Bush is eager to see a vote take place, hoping that it might cement the hold on power of someone he can deal with. Already, Mr. Sharon has hinted that he might allow Palestinians living in East Jerusalem to vote, over the wishes of some members of his cabinet. But he will probably also have to reduce the Israeli military's presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip if elections are to be meaningful. It remains to be seen if he is willing to do this.
Nor is it certain that Washington will pressure him to do so. Recent changes to the Bush cabinet in particular, the replacement of State Secretary Colin Powell by Condolleezza Rice suggest that the hold of the neo-conservatives on the administration is strengthening. Strongly pro-Israel, and tending also to favour Israel's governing Likud Party, this faction sees a congruence between Washington's and Tel Aviv's interests.
UNLIKELY TO CHANGE
What this means is that the context in which the new Palestinian leadership will govern is unlikely to change very much. President Bush's position still seems to be that the first move towards Palestinian statehood must be taken by the Palestinians themselves: they must show good faith by rooting out terrorism, whereupon the peace process can resume. It sounds reasonable on paper. In reality, it may prove difficult.
Yasser Arafat may have lacked the will to stamp out terrorism. But he may also have lacked the capacity. Despite his popularity, he had to contend with a powerful Islamist movement in Hamas. Clamping down hard on terrorism might well have made him look like an Israeli lackey, thereby strengthening the hand of the Islamists. If Mr. Arafat's room to manoeuvre was limited by rival factions, the situation will be even more complicated for his successors.
Both Prime Minister, Ahmed Qureia, and the interim head of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Mahmoud Abbas, have shown themselves to be men who can work with the Israelis and Americans. Their difficulty is that they lack a popular base within Palestine. Moreover, they have to contend with a fragmented security force, one of Mr. Arafat's less savoury legacies to his people. The risks of a violent struggle for power by forces on the ground remain real. Add to that the growing open defiance of Hamas, particularly in the Gaza Strip, and one has a combustible situation in the Palestinian territories.
U.S. DEMANDS
Under the best of circumstances, therefore, it would be asking much of a new Palestinian leadership to accede to U.S. demands while also consolidating its hold on power. Bearing in mind, then, that the external environment does not seem all that propitious, the prospects for a resumption of the peace process do not look terribly good.
One wild card that the Israelis hold is Marwan Barghouti. Currently in an Israeli jail, Barghouti remains popular among ordinary Palestinians. An organiser of the Intifada the popular uprising against Israeli occupation Barghouti was drawn into the PLO but also, at times, challenged Yasser Arafat. To some, he embodies the ascent of a new generation of Palestinian leaders who owe their position not to personal ties with Arafat, but to the support of the street.
The Israelis might yet decide to release him from prison, enabling him to run for office. Failing that, any other future leader will probably have to secure his backing if he is to secure his hold on power. That eventuality offers just a slender hope for peace, but there is little else to bank on right now.
John Rapley is a senior lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.
