Arafat surrender cannot salvage doomed "peace" deal
The Wye peace accord between Israel and the Palestine Authority, signed amid much ballyhoo only a few weeks ago, has finally collapsed - and the Israeli government with it.
How much difference will this make to the miserable situation of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation and in the Palestine Authority, and to the prospects for a settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict?
The Wye Accord was actually little more than a timetable for implementation of commitments which Israel had made long before.
Even so, Israeli PM Netanyahu objected right up to the last minute, and virtually had to be forced by Clinton to sign the document. But Netanyahu’s resistance should not be misunderstood; like most of the Israeli cabinet, he now accepts the Oslo agreements, which he opposed when ex-PM Rabin signed them five years ago.
This is not because he has become convinced of the need for Palestinian rights, and even a Palestinian state, but because, as a cynical and realistic politician, he recognises that the Oslo process, and the recruitment of Arafat and his cronies as Israel’s agents in the repression of the Palestinians, best guarantees the continuation of the occupation and its benefits for Israel.
This cynicism can also be seen in the recent appointment of Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, as Israel’s Foreign Minister, in an attempt to reassure the messianic right that the Greater Israel project is in safe hands. True to form, Sharon’s immediate response to the Wye Accord was to call on Israeli settlers to grab every available hilltop, and establish settlements.
In the days following this speech, hundreds of dunums of Palestinian land were seized by settlers. Further roads are being built, linking these settlements and by-passing Palestinian villages and towns. The patchwork of Palestinian bantustans in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is being even further divided and isolated.
According to Tikva Honig-Parnass, of the Alternative Information Centre in Jerusalem, "The Palestinians will certainly be given a state - but they will not have independence".
Among the new elements in the Wye Accord was the establishment of joint US-Israeli-Palestinian arbitration commissions. Arafat agreed - even demanded - that the US be represented on these commissions by the CIA.
In effect, the PA has conceded that, whenever it disagrees with the Israeli government on the interpretation of the agreement, the CIA should have the final say.
The agreement called on the PA to prevent "incitement". This has been interpreted by Arafat as a green light for censorship. The increasing restrictions on the press have led to a journalists strike and scores of arrests. Several television stations were closed down for reporting Palestinian opposition to the US-British air strikes against Iraq.
A further humiliation heaped on Arafat was the demand that the PLO repeal articles of their charter expressing opposition to Zionism. In fact, this was done several years ago, although the validity of the meeting was challenged by the Palestinian left.
This time, Arafat was unable even to convene a quorate meeting. In methods apparently learned from the "New Labour" style of decision-making, the applause for Arafat’s speech was declared to constitute approval for the necessary constitutional reform.
Meanwhile, Arafat’s opponents gathered in a little-reported meeting in Damascus to reaffirm support for the original PLO charter. This represents probably the final demise of the PLO as a credible organisation, though as yet nothing has been established to replace it.
In one of the few Israeli commitments, Netanyahu promised to begin the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli gaols. Arafat did not bother to specify which prisoners; when the Israelis released 250 petty criminals, sex offenders and drug dealers, Arafat’s ineffectiveness was once again exposed.
Despite all these clear benefits for Israel, Netanyahu was still unable to convince a majority within his coalition to support the agreement. He has been hanging on to power through the tacit support of the Labour opposition, which fully supports Wye.
Most Labour politicians recognise this agreement, and the earlier Oslo agreement, as a continuation of Labour’s historic policy, first expressed in the 1968 Alon Plan, for maximising territory under Israeli rule, while reducing the number of Palestinian subjects. Among Alon’s closest political allies at the time were Rabin and Sharon.
But Netanyahu’s balancing act has now come to an end, and he has called fresh elections for May. He will be challenged from the right by Binyamin Begin, son of the former PM, who opposes any concessions to the Palestinians.
Within his Likud party, Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert is threatening to challenge Netanyahu. Former Justice Minister Dan Meridor plans to stand as a Likud moderate.
A new centre party is being set up, but is already squabbling over its candidate for Prime Minister. Labour leader (and former Chief-of-Staff) Ehud Barak - who has stated that Israel will remain in the settlements "till the end of time" - could also face a challenge within his own party.
Israel’s electoral system, in which the Knesset and the Prime Minister are elected separately, exacerbates the country’s divisive and sectarian political map.
Although the religious parties are unlikely to put up a candidate for PM, they expect to increase their representation in the Knesset. This would enable them to raise the price for support of any government, both in terms of theocratic legislation and in financial support for their institutions.
Other groups seeking increased representation will be Russian immigrants, who now form about 20 per cent of the Jewish population, and the largely Middle Eastern slum dwellers, whose champion David Levi resigned as Foreign Minister earlier this year.
Even if the Labour Party were to win the elections, little would change.
With a slight change in style, and less personal antipathy, Barak would be able to hoodwink Arafat and cheat the Palestinians more easily and successfully than Netanyahu. The policy would remain the same, and Palestinians who believe that Barak is the lesser evil will be greatly disappointed.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu (recently described by the Guardian as "The Houdini of Israeli politics") remains in power with plenty of room for manoeuvre. During the previous elections in 1996, the then Labour Prime Minister Shimon Peres launched a war against Lebanon in an attempt to boost his credentials as a strong leader. In the course of this war, Israeli planes deliberately bombed refugees sheltering at the UN base at Qana, killing more than 100 people. Even this did not gain him a victory at the ballot box.
We can be sure that Netanyahu will make the Palestinians pay whatever price he feels necessary in order to win in May.