Caught between Intifada and hard-line Israelis
No easy way out for Arafat
The Al-Aqsa Intifada has entered its fourth month, and the on-again, off-again US-sponsored peace talks show no sign of leading to an early resolution of the conflict, reports ROLAND RANCE.
Since the uprising started on 29 September, over 300 Palestinians have been killed, and more than 10,000 injured. As a proportion of overall population, this would be equivalent to some 6000 deaths, and 200,000 injuries, over the same three-month period in Britain. Several hundred of the injured, who have been shot in the eyes or spine, have been blinded or are likely to remain permanently incapacitated, possibly paraplegic.
The human and economic cost is immense, particularly for an impoverished society like Palestine
Despite this appalling suffering, there is little sign that Palestinians want to end the uprising; nor does it seem that they would support any deal arranged by Arafat which compromised on essential issues.
At the beginning of November, researchers at Birzeit University conducted a major opinion poll* in the occupied territories. 75% of those polled supported the continuation of the Intifada, even though 30% expected it to continue for months, and a further 24% thought it would continue for years.
The popular pressure against a sell-out deal is clear from the fact that 91.5% replied that they did not believe that peace was possible between Palestinians and Israelis without Israeli recognition of the Pales-tinian right to return.
Hamas has threatened to carry out an armed struggle against Arafat and the Palestinian Authority (PA) if they sign any deal which does not include Israeli withdrawal from Jerusalem, the dismantlement of Israeli settlements, and the return of refugees, and it is likely that sections of Arafat's own Fatah would support this.
The issue of return is now seen to be the most contentious of those dividing Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Diplomats and academics have produced several sophisticated formulae reg-arding sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem, the status of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, road links between different parts of Palestine, border controls and many other questions.
No form of words can bridge the gap between the near-universal Palestinian demand for the right of some 3 million refugees to return to the homes from which they, or their parents and grandparents, were evicted in 1948, and the adamant Israeli refusal even to accept responsibility for their situation, let alone to do anything about it.
In recent years, a new generation of Israeli historians has shown definitively the truth of the left analysis of the events of 1948.There was never a realistic Arab threat to the new Jewish state.
Israel's leaders did not accept the 1947 UN partition plan, but manoeuvred to undermine it and expand the borders of the state. There was collusion between Israel and Jordan to carve up the West Bank and prevent the establishment of a Pal-estinian state.
Israel deliberately, as a matter of policy, expelled 750,000 to 900,000 Palestinians from their homes and across the borders.
Despite this, the Israeli government continues to place responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem on the Arab states, and argues that to allow them to return would undermine Israel's existence as a Jewish state.
Although on other issues Israel appears to have made concessions, closer inspection reveals that there is more spin than substance.
For instance, although Barak has reportedly offered to return 95% of the occupied territories to the Palestinians, the real issue is, 95% of what?
Greater Jerusalem, which has already absorbed large parts of the West Bank, is not on offer. Land already acquired by Israel - as much as one third of the West Bank - is to be "leased" to Israel, and other areas will not be returned.
The Palestinian negotiators have nor been allowed to see a map of Israel's proposals, but face demands to agree them regardless.
The Palestinian struggle, meanwhile, is increasingly assuming the character of a low-intensity war, rather than a mass civil uprising. Writing in the Israeli daily Ha'Aretz, respected journalist Amira Hass - the only occupied territories correspondent actually to live in the occupied territories - notes the ineffectiveness of the Palestine Authority.
He points out: "During the first few weeks of the present Intifada, veterans of the first Intifada and members of NGOs, who (and this is no coincidence) belong to the Palestinian left, said that this Intifada should be an unarmed popular struggle, as was the case with the first Intifada.
"These individuals failed in this attempt ... Members of the Fatah movement - the backbone of a regime that, in the course of seven years, has been unable to improve the living standards of the residents of the PA - tried to restore its past legitimisation as a national liberation movement.
"However, they preferred to do so by focusing on the 'militarisation' of the Intifada - the opening up of safety valves and the use of firearms, which immediately erased the popular-civic character of this uprising" (Ha'Aretz 27 December 2000).
This seizure of the initiative contributes to the further weakening of the elements of Palestinian "civil society", which over the past seven years have faced the combined onslaught of both the Israeli occupation and the corrupt PA regime.
Socialist Outlook has regularly noted the arrest and harassment by the PA of Palestinian activists, such as members of the teachers' union and supporters of last year's "democracy statement".
This militarisation of the conflict is a further stage in the ongoing power struggle within Palestinian society, with both Hamas and Fatah militants exploiting popular discontent in an attempt to succeed the ailing Arafat, but cautious about the potential revolutionary forces.
In Israel, meanwhile, Barak, in a desperate move, has resigned as Prime Minister and prompted a new election. In order to pre-empt former PM Netanyahu, who according to polls would easily beat him, Barak has ensured that the election for PM takes place before the dissolution of the Knesset, thus disbarring Netanyahu from standing.
The only other candidate will be Likud leader Ariel Sharon, reviled by Palestinians and liberal Israelis alike as the man responsible for the 1982 Sabra and Shatilla massacre, and for many other acts of mass murder and anti-Arab brutality.
In the last election, over 90% of the Arab vote went to Barak; this far exceeded his margin of victory over Netanyahu. This time, however, it is unlikely that he will get more than a handful of Arab votes.
Although some Israeli liberals argue that Sharon would be even worse than Barak, many argue that this choice between two generals is no choice at all, and plan not to vote, or to spoil their ballot papers. Some activists have called for a write-in vote for Mordechai Vanunu, Israel's nuclear prisoner of conscience.
Clinton is pushing for an agreement before he leaves office on January 20, while Barak hopes to achieve some sort of deal before the election on February 6. In this situation, and with rising opposition among the Palestinians to a sell-out, Arafat has little reason to make concessions.
But the failure to build a mass popular resistance, and the attack on Palestinian grassroots institutions, leaves the Palestinians with no real strategy to defeat the occupation.
The likely collapse of the "peace process", and the election of Sharon, will represent a terminal blow for the strategy followed by the PLO, Israel and the US alike for the past ten years.
Although Hamas is gaining support, this does not seem to be reflected in Palestinian political attitudes.
The Birzeit poll found that 85% of those asked supported equality between women and men, and 87% favoured equality between Muslims and Christians.
The voices rejecting an imperialist settlement, and insisting on the need to struggle for a unitary, democratic and secular Palestine are again being heard. Revolutionaries in the Middle East face the responsibility of offering a new leadership and strategy for the nascent mass struggle.
The complete poll can be found at http://www.birzeit.edu/dsp/surv2/index.html