The security breakdown in Palestine underscores the urgent need for Palestinians to restore order to their ranks, writes Ibrahim Nafie The Palestinian territories were plunged into chaos last week with the kidnapping of Gaza Security Commander General Ghazi Al- Jibali, a second Palestinian security official and four French aid workers. The spate of kidnappings triggered the resignations of Gaza Director of Preventive Security General Rashid Abu Shebak and General Intelligence Director Amin Al-Hindi, in protest against "the lack of clear orders for ending the current security breakdown, chaos and corruption". These were followed by the resignation of Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei who stated that his government was "unable to effect changes on the ground given the current circumstances". It is significant that the challenge to the PA was delivered by Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the paramilitary wing of Fatah, which is headed by President Arafat. Members of this resistance movement staged the kidnappings, clashing with Palestinian security forces in the process. The eruption of violence, which gravely damaged the image of the Palestinian national struggle, spurred Arafat to finally restructure Palestinian security forces. These he unified under three branches: General Security headed by General Musa Arafat; the police, under the command of General Saeb Al-Azeb; and General Intelligence under General Amin Al-Hindi. The long-awaited restructuring of Palestinian security forces was one of the reforms the PA was required to institute under the roadmap. Hardly had Arafat taken this step than violence erupted again. In the course of the fighting between PA security and Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, members of the latter burned down the PA security headquarters in protest against the appointment of Musa Arafat. President Arafat caved into the pressure and replaced Musa with General Abdel- Razeq Al-Mujaida as director of general security in the West Bank and Gaza. Musa was then put in charge of security in Gaza and General Ismail Jabr in charge of security in the West Bank. In spite of these arrangements, Qurei still held firm to his resignation, stating that he had no differences with any of those appointees, but that "the time had come to set all the security agencies on a proper footing and to put the right men in the right jobs." The developments in Palestine last week confirmed the validity of Egypt's assessment of the Palestinian situation. Egypt has long urged the PA to undertake the reorganisation of its security forces in order to develop the strong and cohesive agencies needed to safeguard stability in the Palestinian territories after the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. Egypt feared that if the PA failed to undertake this step the situation would deteriorate after the withdrawal of occupation forces, making the PA appear incapable of managing the affairs of even a small patch of Palestinian territory and giving Israel the pretext for retracting on its commitment to withdraw from the West Bank. Indeed, Sharon volunteered an early indication of the likelihood of this scenario. Seizing upon the security breakdown in the territories, he said, "Recent events prove that their is no Palestinian partner to represent the other side in the political process." An op-ed piece in Yediot Aharanot of 18 July was more explicit. As events in Gaza illustrated, it said, "the Palestinians are deluding themselves if they think they can run a state." The kidnappings, armed clashes and wave of resignations have something in common with the bombing that took place in a Tel Aviv bus station following the International Court of Justice's ruling on the illegality of Israel's separating wall. Last week I wrote that the bombing tarnished the image of the Palestinian national struggle and that its perpetrators performed a service for Sharon by offering him valuable ammunition in his attack against the ICJ ruling, which discounted security considerations as a justification for building the wall. Clearly, events in Palestine over the past week seem similarly designed to play into Sharon's hands. Once again they betray a deep and far-reaching problem in Palestinian political society, one that requires radical treatment. Although the restructuring of the PA security forces is important, what is really needed is for the Palestinians to get their house in order, for only then will they be able to confront the challenges that face them and capitalise on the opportunities that await them. This is precisely the thinking of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit who appealed to the Palestinians "to make unity a priority so that they can prove to the world that they are capable of shouldering the responsibilities of creating a state founded upon institutions that abide by the rule of law". In this regard, as important as Arafat's decision to unify security agencies is, more important is the need to ensure that the decision is implemented in a manner approved by all Palestinian factions. This, in turn, would constitute a concrete step towards the even more crucial task of reaching a consensus over a national agenda for the Palestinian struggle. It cannot be stressed enough how detrimental the current "security breakdown" and the ongoing conflict between the various Palestinian organisations and factions is to the cause of Palestinian rights. The Palestinian people have just won a major victory with the ICJ ruling on the separation wall and the General Assembly's adoption of this ruling by an overwhelming majority. It would be a tragedy to forfeit the opportunities this achievement has opened. This leads me to raise again the subject of Egypt's drive to capitalise on the Sharon initiative for unilateral disengagement from Gaza. When Egypt initiated this drive it was as aware of the latent dangers in the disengagement plan as it was of the unique opportunity it offered to link it to the Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied by Israel in June 1967. In spite of all the difficulties it has encountered, Egypt remained unflagging in its efforts and continued to work in accordance with the timeframe it set for this process. Under this timeframe August and September are to be dedicated to Palestinian-Palestinian dialogues, the reform of the PA security apparatus, and the resumption of an intensive Egyptian international diplomatic drive in support of the Palestinian position. Egypt has already held talks with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement and on Sunday it will begin talks with Hamas, after which it will hold dialogues with other Palestinian factions. At the same time Egypt has been in constant communication with Israeli officials and with influential powers, especially the members of the Quartet. The purpose of these communications is to ensure that Israel abides by the roadmap, with the understanding that disengagement from Gaza is only one step in a process that will ultimately lead to Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian territories and the creation of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. In other words, if the Israeli disengagement from Gaza and from four major settlements in the northern West Bank is to be completed by the end of 2005, this must be perceived as only one phase in the series of phases that constitute the roadmap. Above all, we must be particularly clear at this juncture that the situation can no longer brook any evasion of responsibility. We have before us an opportunity that we cannot afford to pass up and we must do our utmost to ensure that all sides abide by their commitments so that the rest of the world does not draw the conclusion that the Middle East is the land of lost opportunities. It would also do us well at this juncture to benefit from the lessons of history, especially the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian cause. As we take stock of the gradual erosion of the alternatives available to the Palestinians and Arabs over the years, we must confront the question as to how this came about. As I have said on numerous occasions the Egyptian initiative on the handling of Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan was informed by a careful analysis of the regional and international situation. That the US administration will be preoccupied with the business of elections, while other international powers may be sidetracked by their own domestic and regional concerns does not significantly alter the situation. With so much at stake here we cannot allow the future of the Palestinian people and the fate of a nation to hang on unpredictables such as which US presidential candidate will win and what position that winner will take once he assumes power. More than ever it is incumbent upon us to prove to the world that we are serious in our quest for peace and that the guiding principles in our actions towards this end are the higher interests of the Arab world. The Palestinians have the major onus to shoulder in this regard. The PA must act now to implement the required reforms in its security agencies and work to reach a national agenda in cooperation with other Palestinian factions and organisations. If they fail to do so they will have forfeited that window of opportunity currently available for setting into motion a truly viable process for a political settlement. At that point the world will no longer take us seriously. At that point it will probably turn its attention to other issues, while concern for our causes fades into the background and the situation of the Palestinians becomes a question of capping violence and containment. Perhaps the recent reports issuing from European capitals warning of the dwindling prospects of creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel should give us some sobering food for thought.
