A duped Palestinian leadership merrily applauded the self-serving media show staged by Israel in Gaza, writes Ghada Karmi* The importance that the world's politicians and media have accorded the Israeli "disengagement" from Gaza is extraordinary. Watching it in astonishment from Ramallah over the last few days, I marvel at the publicity this Israeli move has generated. And it is just that: a unilateral Israeli decision to vacate the Gaza settlements, taken without consultation with the Palestinian leadership or people (as if they lived in China). Starting 14 August, over 3,000 journalists descended on Gaza, mostly going to the settlements; the world's TV, radio and press have provided wall-to-wall coverage of every utterance, nuance or move Israelis make. We have seen wailing settlers, brave soldiers doing their painful duty, heated debates in the Knesset, anti-government demonstrations and a grim Sharon addressing his people. The aim behind this drama reflects Sharon's desire to make maximum political capital out of his "concession for peace". What is less clear is the Palestinian enthusiasm for the Israeli initiative. The Palestinian Authority, well in advance of the event, mounted a gigantic information effort. Every available journalist, information expert, spokesperson and minister was recruited to assist in the media effort. Most of these went to Gaza, as also did the bulk of the Palestinian government, which moved there in early August. A smart press and media operation was established in Gaza with daily briefings, press conferences, contact lists for journalists available for interviews in English and Arabic. In recognition of the importance of this effort, President Mahmoud Abbas inaugurated the new media centre in Gaza on 14 August. In the period of my work in Ramallah, I have not seen a comparable information project. At the same time, public demonstrations and festivities were organised in Gaza to celebrate Israel's withdrawal. Is this Palestinian reaction wise? Should the Palestinian side appear to support the image that Israel has been trying to promote of a nation racked by the pain of making sacrifices? By their massive presence and media tactics, aren't Palestinians helping inflate the significance of Israel's move? After all, the Palestinian leadership has persistently and rightly warned against making too much of the Gaza redeployment, stressing the fact that it is in Israel's sole interest, and the danger that it would act as cover for Israel's concomitant plans to expand West Bank settlements and continue building the separation wall. And indeed, on 15 August, Israeli Foreign Minister Shaul Mofaz announced that Israel would annex the major West Bank settlement blocs. Travelling in the West Bank, you can see the physical expansion of these colonies. Sharon has declared repeatedly that the Gaza disengagement would help Israel enlarge its eastern -- i.e. West Bank -- borders. The wall's relentless progress is as plain to see as the wretched Palestinian workers forced by poverty to build it. Israel, moreover, has given no undertaking to lift control of Gaza's borders. It is refusing to relinquish its hold on the Rafah-Egypt crossing, proposing various arrangements that perpetuate the status quo. The latest of these is a relocation of the crossing to the southeastern tip where Gaza, Israel and Egypt meet. If Palestinians refuse, Israel will retaliate by rescinding the import tax arrangements agreed in 1995, with serious economic consequences for Gaza. In this context, were celebrations of such magnitude appropriate? On my last visit, I could understand the relief Gazans, freed from internal checkpoints, would feel initially. The Strip, small enough already at 364 square kilometres, is further sliced up into sections, guarded by checkpoints. The most notorious, at Abu Holy, shuts off Khan Younis and Rafah. The army closed it just as I was trying to cross. Waiting for hours in the traffic jam that ensued under a burning sun was an intolerable experience. Any easing of this daily Gazan nightmare would be welcomed. But what happens afterwards? The Palestinian argument is that any Israeli withdrawal or evacuation of settlements, however modest, however conditional, is good. In Gaza's case, the belief that Palestinian steadfastness and resistance precipitated Israel's actions is an additional factor. Pomp and ceremony were necessary, therefore, as reward and appreciation for this achievement. Appearing to conform to American wishes was another imperative. Since President Bush had already approved Israel's disengagement plans in April 2004, it would be churlish for Palestinians to respond without enthusiasm. In a situation of weakness and dependence on US good offices, Palestinians cannot risk losing the few benefits they might gain from their acquiescence to the American agenda. A reasonable argument, one might think. But in Palestine, nothing is as it seems. There is another layer of reality to take into account. International donors have pledged to provide for various Palestinian needs before and after Israel's withdrawal. Funding is allocated separately for public relations, the cost of expanding the security services, job creation and development. USAID alone has promised $51 million for agricultural projects. The funds reflect the donors' priorities and must be spent accordingly. Understanding this should put the Palestinian media overdrive into true perspective: money and jobs. Unfortunately, the effect on Western public opinion will be the same, irrespective of the cause: that Israel has made a monumental effort in the cause of peace, despite fierce opposition, and that Palestinians concur; the primacy they have placed on Gaza is proof of that. An acknowledgement of the Israeli move was clearly necessary, but not to this extent. Had the top Palestinian leadership remained in Ramallah, it would have forced the journalists to spend half their time there. This would have helped reinforce the message about the threat to the West Bank and Jerusalem that Israel's plans pose, countering the Israeli strategy of using Gaza to distract international attention. The moral is clear but impossible to adopt. Palestinians are caught in a dependency trap, which obliges them to play by the rules and act sometimes against their own best interests. And that in itself indicates a deeper Arab failure to support their cause. * The writer is an information consultant based in Ramallah.
