The real obstacles to peace

By Pierre Laurent

The transition to a new Palestinian presidency could prove highly dangerous if the perspective of a Palestinian State is not rapidly put back onto the agenda.

While the Palestinians are now officially getting ready for Yasser Arafat’s funeral, there are preliminary speculations on a possible renewal of peace negotiations with Israel. It would seem that the death of the Palestinian leader may have given credibility to this process.
Let’s be clear about this: if the least chance for such a thing exists, in the outcome of this new situation, then everything needs to be done to seize it, and return to the negotiating table. But there’s no point in fooling ourselves or in trying to convince the world (as Ariel Sharon done for the past three years, with support from American leaders), that Yasser Arafat was the obstacle to renewing these discussions. Indeed this would harm the cause for peace.

In reality, although Yasser Arafat’s death deprives the Israeli government of one of the pretexts it created out of the blue in order to undermine any negotiations towards the creation of a Palestinian State, it does not remove any of the decrees established by Ariel Sharon to put an abrupt stop to any hopes for peace. Far from being a magic password, the transition towards a new Palestinian presidency could prove highly dangerous if the perspective of a Palestinian State is not quickly placed back on centre stage.
Without Yasser Arafat, without a legitimate president, and without any vision for the future, the despair of the Palestinian people will inevitably make headway. It is time to forcibly demand the renewal of a process which could open the way to the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to live on this land, in a State existing peacefully alongside Israel.

Ever since the beginning of Yasser Arafat’s agony, the Palestinian people, whose daily life remains a tribulation, have remained remarkably calm and responsible. It’s now up to the Israeli government, and its American ally, and the members of the “quartet” (EU, USA, Russia, UN), to respond to this spirit of responsibility by immediately taking initiatives leading to a renewal of the peace process.

The first challenge will be to help the Palestinians achieve a democratic and legitimate transition. The Palestinian Constitution allows for this, providing for a number of different candidates. But for this to happen, Israel, the occupying force, must make this possible by enabling elections which are supervised by an international delegation, as was the case in 1994 for Yasser Arafat’s election. The repressive and warlike nature of the occupation must yield to the necessity of a sovereign leadership for the Palestinians. To sabotage the elections would be to clearly make a choice for violence.

Over and beyond the organization of free and sovereign elections for the new Palestinian leadership, the stakes are for a clear-cut commitment in favour of peace negotiations based on the most advanced discussions to date: such as those that remained unfinished at Taba, or those described by the Geneva peace initiative.
Otherwise, no Palestinian leader will be able to negotiate without the backing of his people. It’s not enough to speculate individually about the degree of aptitude for compromise of such or such a Palestinian leader – but to finally take into account the refusal of the Palestinian people to allow its rights to be sold short. Up to now, this determination was embodied by Yasser Arafat.

The Israeli government doesn’t have a problem in liaising with the right person. First and foremost, it has a problem with the wall of shame, which it built in perfect disrespect for international rights, and whose existence is incompatible with a perspective of peace. It has a problem with the plan for evacuating Gaza, in exchange for which it has reinforced colonisation to the point of pure and simple annexation of the West Bank. Neither yesterday, nor tomorrow, will peace be able to adapt to these blatant violations of the Palestinian people’s rights.