Abu Mazen: Anti-Resistance Or Pro-Peace?

Mahmoud Abbas, the newly-elected Palestinian Premier

Before jumping to conclusions or accusing the man – dubbed a moderate by Israel and the US – of betrayal or playing cop to ensure the Israelis’ security, we need to ask a couple of questions, the answers to which may help us draw a clearer picture.

Is he really capable of delivering on what he pledged? In other words, can he really disarm the armed resistance factions? Will the Israelis help him? In other words, will the occupation forces ease their clampdown on the Palestinian people, at least temporarily, as a sign of goodwill?

Several days after Abu Mazen took office, press reports about Sharon personally heading “peace negotiations” with him surfaced. Good sign. Almost simultaneously, Israeli Tourism Minister Benny Elon left for the US, where he presented US officials with an Israeli plan based on the naturalization of the Palestinians in Jordan, claiming that a Palestinian state in the spirit of President George Bush's vision will only feed “terrorism,” and that Jordan is Palestine, according to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz of May 3.

Rather than be accused of spreading rumors and baseless reports, we can look at the Jordanian response of Monday, May 5, 2003. Jordan 's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs dismissed as "ridiculous" efforts by Israel 's ultra-nationalist minister of tourism to block the creation of a Palestinian state west of the River Jordan, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP). Shaher Bak told Jordan 's pro-government daily Al Rai that Benny Elon's plan "is ridiculous... and does not reflect the position of the Israeli government."

Elon is an Israeli Cabinet Minister, under the premiership of Sharon – supposedly a partner to the roadmap and Bush’s vision of a Palestinian state by 2005. So Elon could not have been acting on independently. Even if this was the case, Sharon could at least disagree. That did not happen. Why?

Let us consider the other side; namely the Palestinian resistance factions that are generally opposed to the so-called peace process, and whom western media usually refer to as “radical Islamic movements.”

These factions, notably Hamas and Islamic Jihad, argue that armed resistance is the only way to confront the Israeli occupation. Abu Mazen – referred to as a moderate and reformist – believes negotiations with Israel are the only way to successfully regain the Palestinians’ rights. Fine. A closer look at the situation during the past decade may be informative here.

After the Gulf War in 1991 and the launching of the Madrid peace conference, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed the Oslo Accords in the White House in 1993 – the agreement then referred to as “Gaza-Jericho.” Under that agreement, an independent Palestinian state should have been declared in May 1998. What happened?

A Hamas rally

Six years after that date, Israel is reoccupying most of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, has placed Arafat under virtual house arrest, and turned the Palestinian occupied territories into the world’s biggest prison. The Oslo Accords and the agreements sponsored by Washington and other world powers are virtually history.

So I think it is only logical for Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders to refuse to disarm until the Israeli occupation ends. That is their rationale and I do not find it too hard to understand.

However, the situation is not that simple. To get a broader view of the picture, we need to look at Abu Mazen’s arguments too. I mean, he’s a Palestinian with a long history of anti-occupation activities; the man is the PLO’s number two.

Abu Mazen, through his statements, argues that the armed face of the Intifada (bombings and martyrdom operations, in particular) has had more negative than positive effects on the Palestinian cause. He believes that Israel makes use of every bombing operation to discredit the Palestinians before world opinion, thus losing support for their cause.

Following the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington and the launching of the so-called “war on terror,” Israel has been trying – successfully, for the most part – to link the Palestinians’ armed resistance to Israeli occupation to world “terror.” Thus, according to Abu Mazen, it’s high time the Palestinians gave up their one and only weapon and accepted the mediation of Washington in the hope that it may lead somewhere.

Bitter argument? Bitter reality? Maybe, but the question now is; where can such an argument lead the Palestinians? To give up their rights, on the basis that they are helpless and cornered?

For its part, Israel did not leave any room for illusions anyway. On Thursday, May 1, an Israeli army raid on Gaza City killed 12 Palestinians; only hours after the US announced the “roadmap.”

Yusef Abu Hin, a Hamas leader, was killed when Israeli troops dynamited a four-floor building in Gaza after a 15-hour battle waged by tanks, infantry and helicopter gun ships. Abu Hin's brothers Ayman and Mahmoud, along with nine other people including a two-year-old boy, also died in the assault, according to AFP.

So it’s clear that Israel never gave up its military tactics in dealing with the Palestinians. Why would Abu Mazen want to give up his military card, even at the negotiating table? I mean, isn’t it better to negotiate while capable of striking back than to negotiate with a party that knows damn well that you have nothing to hurt him with?

Actually, I recall my fury whenever I hear the Egyptian President declaring that “we will never go to war, no matter what,” while Israeli officials keep raving about bombing the High Dam or other Egyptian landmarks! Even if you’re not ready to fight, you shouldn’t declare it. But it seems the Arabs no longer consider Israel an enemy. Personally, I’d love that to be mutual. I mean war is an ugly thing, I just hope Sharon shares the same opinion!

Back to Abu Mazen: He pledged to end the armed chaos in the Palestinian territories, offer the people a better life and crack down on corruption. Well, this is great, but that armed chaos he is referring to is a bit controversial. I mean the Israeli forces are wreaking havoc in the territories, shooting at kids, women, peace activists, foreign journalists, you name it. How does he plan to stop that? By signing another peace treaty and smiling for the cameras?

What if the killings and destruction don’t stop? Will he cry foul, as Arafat is currently doing after Oslo and Gaza-Jericho? What are the guarantees Abu Mazen has that Sharon will abide by any treaty he signs? United States influence?

On January 19, questioned about his view on the peace plan of the so-called quartet (the US, the UN, the EU and Russia ), Sharon told Newsweek ''Oh, the quartet is nothing! Don’t take it seriously!”

Sharon then talked about his plan for “peace,” consisting of several phases. ''First, Arafat should be removed from an influential position'' – done. ''Secondly, a prime minister should be appointed,” - also done. “Third, reforms should be undertaken, mostly in the security organizations.''

''Then, there are problems on the financial side. I think our estimate of Arafat’s property is about $2 billion. Once the reforms have been completed, there should be free and democratic elections.''

On the measures that will be taken by Israel, he said ''I am ready, if they have taken steps against terror, to recognize a fully demilitarized Palestinian state without final borders - having only police equipped with light weapons.''

'' Israel will control the external borders and will have the right to fly over the territory. Now we come to phase three: if there’s no terror whatsoever, then we will have to decide about the final borders.''

Sharon apparently ignored the basic reason behind the Palestinians’ legitimate struggle, or what he termed “terror;” that being the Israeli occupation that keeps bombing and killing Palestinians, demolishing their homes, and turning their cities and towns into the world’s largest ever prison.

The real problem facing the Palestinians now, in my opinion, is divisions among themselves that have allowed successive Israeli governments to keep talking about peace while carrying on with frenzied settlement activity that is eating up Palestinian lands.

The illegal settlement activities (even though matters of legality have never seemed to concern Israel ) have never stopped since the Madrid Peace Conference. So the question Abu Mazen needs to mull now is: What is the point of talking with someone who is not interested? Israel had to quit Sinai after it realized the Egyptians would never quit. The same happened in Lebanon. Why would Palestine be an exception?

Khaled Mamdouh is an editor and staff writer in the News Desk of IslamOnline. He is also a radio announcer, journalist and translator for several Arabic magazines.