The breakdown of law and order in the Palestinian territories, while damaging the credibility of the cause, should not have come as a surprise, writes Clovis Maksoud* 23 July should have been a day of reflection on its meaning and relevance to the Arab nation as well as to Egypt. The turbulent times we are going through necessitates a thorough and objective reassessment of this historic experience with all its accomplishments -- and they were many -- and all its flaws -- and they were many, too. While eager to proceed to analyse the relevance and implications of the 23 July revolt to our present conditions, the Palestinian situation unravelled in a manner that threatens the very fabric of the Palestinian society, besides undermining the status and the stature of the Palestinian cause. Thus the potential danger of the events in the Palestinian territories to the rest of the Arabs and the serious damage to the centrality and credibility of the Palestinian cause. The disarray that took place in the Palestinian territories should not be tolerated or accepted by the Arab states and the Arab people. What is taking place is the breakdown of authority and the institutional flaws in the current leadership. This condition has been long in coming. Since the 1974 Arab summit adopted the resolution that "the PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," the Arab states signalled a detachment from the overall Arab national responsibility only to be handled within the framework of the Arab state system. This explains the reason why the Arab League and other members of the world community recognised the PLO as a "sovereign" state. There was even a time when we all bragged that more states recognised Palestine than Israel. While the Arabs could afford this illusion when the non- aligned movement was still functional, the shift towards a unipolar world system -- with obvious US favoritism towards Israel -- hit us with a new cruel and costly reality. What followed is well known. The PLO leadership became more eager to be treated as a full-fledged state instead of organising itself as the framework and the vanguard of resistance to Israeli occupation. Treating the PLO as a state -- when it obviously is not -- led to its ceasing to be a functional resistance movement. It enabled the Arab state system to co-opt it as an integral part to the system and weakened the underpinnings of an authentic resistance movement. There was a period when, in the aftermath of the First Gulf War and the Madrid conference, the internal component of the first Intifada undertook the task of negotiating with the occupiers as representatives of a resistance movement. Throughout the negotiations in Washington DC with the leadership of Haidar Abdul-Shafi, simultaneously in Oslo secret negotiations between the virtual Palestinian state and Israel were taking place and led to the Oslo agreement. From then on, the resistance-occupier equation was replaced with a series of "peace processes". Notwithstanding the Nobel Peace prizes to Chairman/President Yasser Arafat and Isaac Rabin besides the proliferation of ministerial and ambassadorial titles to Palestinian cadres, the false hopes that were assiduously marketed brought a period of "fraternisation" that de- authenticated the resistance and distorted -- and at times corrupted -- the institutions of governance of the Palestinian Authority. What we are now witnessing in the current tragic situation of the Palestinians is the forcible exposure of the false premises and the false promises of the "peace processes" from Oslo to the roadmap. The immediate and urgent task now for the Arab League and its member states is to prevent the exposure from becoming an unmanageable explosion. Is it not amazing that at the time when the International Court of Justice spelled with clarity and firmness the equation that defines the legal and political status of the occupied territories simultaneously, the crisis of the Palestinian Authority and leadership threw the historical struggle completely off balance? Is it not amazing that when the current crisis is taking place, Sharon is prompting -- "advising" -- French Jews to come to "Israel" forcing the assumption that Jews cannot and therefore must not integrate into their respective national communities? Is Sharon not insulting the democratic and progressive states where Jews are integrated in the political, social, economic and cultural fabric of their communities of citizenship and are even assimilated? Does this not behoove us all to undertake a campaign to enlighten world opinion about the inherent danger the Zionist project constitutes for the Jewish genuine sense of belonging? The outrage that the French government expressed can reopen a universal conversation that emphasises reconciliation in lieu of a polarity where discrimination is, as in Israel, more of a policy matter than a problem. These opportunities for a political and intellectual breakthrough will be missed if the Arabs do not reclaim their national responsibility expeditiously and assiduously and collectively bring coherence and a sustained sense of direction to the Palestinian people in their moment of truth. What can be done forthwith? To begin with, the "resistance-occupation" equation must be restored. Knowing that Israel does not acknowledge that it is an occupying power then the PLO (including the Palestine Authority) must revert to the context of the Palestinian peoplehood and hence the legitimate leadership of the resistance movement. It must signal to the world that it has ceased its commitment to the "peace processes" that have proven to be exercises in futility and a licence for Israel to mutilate the geographic and demographic character of the Palestinian patrimony. It ought to communicate to the world that, as a resumed resistance movement, it will seek all peaceful avenues -- civil disobedience, demonstrations, diplomatic channels -- and militancy as an option of last resort. The PLO has become nearly dysfunctional when it became subsumed by treating itself as a "state" without any sovereign prerogatives. In essence, the resistance was at its best when the first Intifada was the projection of the PLO and the instrumentality of its commitment to national liberation. It is true that while the leadership crisis in Palestine will take its toll, it would be historically unfair to confine the causes of this degradation to the present leadership. Of course, the US shielding of Israel's aggressions and Israel's violations of international and humanitarian laws have nearly paralysed the UN and the worthiness of its resolutions. The Arab state system must share major responsibility for the prevailing malaise throughout the Arab nation and tragic chaos that broke out recently in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinian national unity must be preserved at all cost. Routinising violations of Palestinian national and human rights must be made costly to Israel and to those who give Israel prior protection to its ongoing violations. The Arab states -- particularly their governments -- must learn to seek respect from the US rather than delight in being tapped on the shoulders as a sign of approval. Dignity remains a realistic worthy component of policy. Perhaps this is what constitutes the relevance of 23 July as part of our collective national memory. Perhaps, too, dignity with all its manifestations can, despite the odds, be the preserver of an urgent healing process in Palestine -- and in Iraq -- and to our wounded national pride, too. * The writer is former Arab League ambassador to the UN and the director of the Centre for the Global South, American University, Washington DC.
