[Mb-civic] What the P.L.O. Has to Offer By SAEB EREKAT

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

March 1, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
What the P.L.O. Has to Offer
By SAEB EREKAT

Jericho, West Bank

MANY have argued that Hamas's winning of a decisive majority in the
Palestinian Parliament provides yet another setback for peace and democracy
in the Middle East. Some have even suggested that it vindicates Israeli
unilateralism. I, however, think the opposite is true: A negotiated and
lasting peace may now be closer than many of us could have imagined just
weeks ago.

The parliamentary elections could be seen as a referendum on the leadership
of President Mahmoud Abbas, who came to office a year ago after winning
nearly two-thirds of the popular vote. Mr. Abbas ran on a platform of job
creation, internal security and a negotiated resolution of the conflict with
Israel based on two states living side by side in peace.

Many people believe that Mr. Abbas did not deliver. Today, there are fewer
jobs, not more; security for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank,
including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Gaza Strip is worse, not better;
and negotiations, like the two-state solution, are stalled.

Mr. Abbas, however, is not ultimately to blame. When he called on Israel to
lift restrictions on Palestinian movement and trade within and between
Palestinian areas, Israel refused ‹ despite similar calls from the World
Bank, the United Nations, the European Union and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice. The restrictions translated not just into more poverty but
also into less security, for Mr. Abbas could not even move police forces
within Palestinian territory.

President Abbas did deliver, and largely maintained, a "tahdia" ‹ a "period
of calm" between the Palestinian factions and Israel. And he was able to do
this despite scores of Palestinian deaths and several thousand military
raids and arrests that Israel conducted in violation of its agreement not to
undertake such activities. Israel also tightened its control over key
territory, resources and markets ‹ primarily occupied East Jerusalem ‹ that
we will need to build an economically viable state.

So, President Abbas, the leader of the Fatah party, made a set of campaign
promises; the opposite came to fruition; therefore, Palestinians elected the
only alternative: Hamas.

In reality, however, the vote was neither a rejection of President Abbas and
his peace program nor an endorsement of the Hamas charter. According to
recent polls, nearly 70 percent of Palestinians still support Mr. Abbas as
president. And 84 percent of Palestinians still want a negotiated peace
agreement with Israel. Even among Hamas voters, more than 60 percent of
those polled support an "immediate" resumption of negotiations.

The apparent contradiction between Palestinian support for peace and Hamas's
electoral victory is most easily explained by popular anger at the perceived
corruption of the never-before-challenged Fatah. Whereas Hamas will now have
to accept that the majority of its own voters reject its core ideology,
Fatah must now undertake a long-overdue housecleaning to eradicate
corruption and regain the trust of the electorate.

While most Palestinians remain committed to peace, they have become
disenchanted with a process that has brought them no closer than they were
in 1993 to their dream of freedom and independence. In the 12 years since
the Oslo process was initiated, Israel has become more entrenched in
Palestinian land than ever before. And the international community
acquiesced all the while. The electorate punished us all for allowing
conditions to deteriorate to this level.

Israel's accelerated colonization of the occupied West Bank ‹ through which
it has routed 80 percent of its wall ‹ isn't helping. Christian and Muslim
Palestinian communities are being destroyed to the absolute detriment of any
prospect of a two-state solution.

Recently, Israel's acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert, announced his plan to
determine unilaterally the final borders of Israel, while keeping control of
strategic parts of the occupied West Bank: East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley
and three major illegal settlement blocs ‹ a plan that would result in the
effective end of our state-building project.

Israel's disingenuous pronouncements that it has "no partner" to negotiate
peace, and that Mr. Abbas is "no longer relevant" should be seen in that
unilateralist light. The Palestine Liberation Organization, which Mr. Abbas
also leads, is the sole representative of Palestinians everywhere and
therefore the only real negotiating partner. Its mandate remains unaffected
by the parliamentary elections.

If Israel continues to exploit the Hamas victory to claim that it has "no
partner" for talks and avoid negotiations ‹ and if the international
community remains indifferent ‹ the conflict can only deteriorate.

This would be an unforgivable loss for peace. While Palestinian democracy
poses no challenge to the resolution of the conflict, Israel's "no partner"
mantra and the political cowardice of the international community do.

The Hamas victory cannot be allowed to obscure the reality: the Palestinian
people want a negotiated peace, and in Mr. Abbas they have a Palestinian
Authority president and P.L.O. chairman who shares their view, enjoys a
mandate to act and has the ability to deliver. For those committed to
reaching a two-state solution, public support on both sides of the conflict
likely provides the last opportunity to see our vision materialize. Now we
all have a duty to respond immediately to our peoples' demands for a
negotiated peace.

Saeb Erekat is the chief negotiator of the Palestine Liberation
Organization.

    * Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
    * Home
    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * XML
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map
    * Back to Top