While wrangling continues as to the date and form of Palestinian parliamentary elections, 2005 is sure to be a momentous year in the annals of Palestinian history, writes Samir Ghattas* How long can the Palestinians hold their breath while the Israelis prepare to pull out of Gaza? The withdrawal was scheduled to begin on 20 July and be complete by 1 September 2005. But the Israeli prime minister discovered that the date of withdrawal coincided with the anniversary of the temple's destruction. In deference to public sentiment, Sharon says he cannot begin the withdrawal on time. The withdrawal is now likely to start on 15 August, the process compressed so that evacuation is complete -- as scheduled -- on 1 September, or so Sharon promises. This is not what the Palestinians want to hear, and some -- particularly within Hamas -- are threatening to retaliate, ending the state of calm they have maintained for some time vis-�-vis Israel. What makes Palestinian wrath even more understandable is that Israel has lately resumed its policy of mass detentions and targeted killings. Some observers believe that Sharon is provoking the Palestinians on purpose, so as to discredit President Mahmoud Abbas. Sharon is perhaps hoping the Palestinians will lose patience and mount an attack that would absolve Israel from the commitments it made in Sharm El- Sheikh. And during his recent US visit, the Israeli prime minister complained, yet again, that Israel had no credible Palestinian partner. But the Americans didn't buy it this time, soon after dispatching two senior officials, Eliot Abrams and David Welch, to confer with Abbas in Ramallah. The recent Israeli escalation must be seen in the light of the public outrage with which Sharon was met after his return from the US. Leaks to the media suggested that Sharon was going to activate Section B of the disengagement plan right after the withdrawal from Gaza was complete. Section B involves extensive withdrawal from the West Bank, with several settlements dismantled and a unilateral pullout of Israeli troops to the separation wall. As Sharon's office denied the leak, the Israeli government began acting tough in the West Bank, perhaps as a way of deflecting public criticism. The Palestinians have ample reason to consider ending the period of calm. But this is a weighty decision and calls for careful pondering, for much is at stake. The Palestinians are within their rights to threaten ending the calm in response to Israel's actions. But Hamas, for instance, has no right to threaten a resumption of military activities if elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) are not held on 17 July, as scheduled. The latter threat came from a Hamas spokesman on 17 April. It is irrational. Legislative elections are a domestic Palestinian affair. The state of calm is a Palestinian-Israeli issue. There is no logical connection between the two. Hamas is not acting reasonably. The group only recently decided to contest the PLC elections, a move it opposed for long, saying the elections are an outcome of the Oslo Accords. Some people within Hamas have made a habit of embarrassing the Palestinian Authority through military operations against Israel. The same people are now threatening to break the state of calm with Israel if the PLC elections are delayed. It is a poor argument. Political differences should be resolved through dialogue and harmony, not blackmail. The decision by Hamas to join the political process was welcomed by all Palestinian parties. Yet Hamas failed to participate in a meeting held in Gaza to exchange views over PLO reform. Hamas, apparently, is still adjusting to its new situation, although Khaled Mashaal, head of Hamas Political Bureau, says that Hamas has been engaged in dialogue through backdoor channels with the US and several European countries. With some predicting a landslide victory for Hamas in July, it is disconcerting that the group is still finding it hard to engage with the Palestinian Authority on simple procedural matters, such as the date of the PLC elections. The Islamic Jihad is also in a conflicted state of mind. To this day, it says it will boycott the PLC elections because they smack of Oslo. But Jihad had no problem taking part in consultations over PLO reform held recently in Gaza. It is hard to foresee which way Hamas and Jihad are heading. But it is easy to understand why Hamas is irked over talk of postponement. Having won 65 per cent of the vote in municipal elections in Gaza, Hamas wants to contest the PLC elections as soon as possible, particularly when Fatah is embroiled with internal problems. Hamas understandably suspects Fatah of seeking to postpone the elections. Fatah, for its part, is denying such accusations. Its officials say the movement has defeated Hamas in municipal elections in the West Bank, winning 18 out of 25 municipal councils. Fatah also outperformed Hamas in elections held at the Lawyers Association, Bethlehem University, and An-Najah University. It will not be long before one can ascertain which group, Hamas or Fatah, is ahead in public opinion. In less than two weeks, elections will be held in 84 municipal councils. The outcome of those elections would tell us much about the popularity of both Hamas and Fatah. But municipal elections are not necessarily a good indication of how parliamentary elections would unfold. In the Cairo Declaration released in March, Palestinian groups agreed to amend the elections law, altering the rules under which the 1996 PLC elections were held. The proposed amendment took much time to materialise, and that is the main reason the elections may need to be postponed. Three views came to the fore during the debate: first, that membership of the PLC be increased from 88 to 132 members; second, that a mixed electoral system be introduced, with two- thirds of the council -- or 88 seats -- allocated to individual candidates, and one-third -- or 44 seats -- allocated to electoral lists; and third, that 20 per cent of seats go to women. The proposed amendments were approved in the second reading and now await a cabinet decision within a maximum of two weeks. Following cabinet endorsement, the amendments would be finally approved and submitted to the president. From a purely legal point of view, any new law needs a minimum of three months to go into effect. This is why the elections may be pushed beyond their scheduled date of 17 July, despite President Abbas's promise that they would be held on time. Regardless of when the elections are held, they will mark a turning point in Palestinian history. * The writer is the director of the Maqdis Centre for Political Studies in Gaza.
