Israel's decision to remove Yasser Arafat was almost unanimously condemned. But few Palestinians believe the danger has passed, writes Graham Usher from Ramallah One week after it became official Israeli policy to "remove" him as the freely chosen leader of his people, Yasser Arafat radiates relevance. His all but destroyed headquarters in Ramallah has become a shrine to his status, whether in the form of mass festivals by Palestinians, visits by diplomats or pilgrimages from the remnants of the Israeli peace camp. He also witnessed the supreme irony of the world -- virtually to a country -- denouncing Israel's decision. "The US does not support either the elimination or exile of Mr Arafat. It's not our position; hasn't been. The Israeli government knows it," said Secretary of State Colin Powell, through clenched teeth, on Sunday. But the Palestinian leader also knows such statements are the most transient of political commodities. Portents of a darker future came on Tuesday when the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Israel "desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety to the elected president of the Palestinian Authority". America's UN ambassador said the resolution was "insufficiently balanced" because it did not denounce Hamas and Al-Aqsa Brigades by name. He said Washington still believes leaving Arafat in diplomatic isolation is the "best course" for Israel to take. Moves like this confirm Palestinian fears that the American opposition is anything but permanent. They also know the Israeli debate over whether it is more advantageous to expel Arafat or simply kill him is academic. Expulsion means death. "He prefers martyrdom," says an aide who was with Arafat during earlier banishments from Jordan and Lebanon. "He won't be exiled from his homeland again." If so, what would follow? One idea currently going around (including within Arafat's Fatah movement) is to dissolve the PA, and with it all prospects of a political process. Either we have a fully-fledged military occupation or a fully-fledged authority, meaning a return to the situation that existed before the Intifada," says outgoing PA Labour Minister Ghassan Khatib. "What cannot be is the current situation where Israel has military control over us while we are expected to run the schools and crack down on the opposition. This suits Sharon like a glove. It's not going to continue." The alternatives would be worse. One scenario is that the PA continues in some shape or other while Palestinian forces fight over the mantle left by Arafat. This augurs less a civil war between Fatah and Hamas (since the Islamists have never been interested in leadership of the PA) than a bloody power struggle within Fatah, with the most likely fault-line between its young fighters and old guards. "We'd have militias everywhere, like Lebanon," says the aide. Arafat's departure would also affect the balance of power within Palestinian society, especially between its Islamist and nationalist streams. Under extreme pressure from Israeli assassinations at home and facing increased diplomatic isolation abroad, few Palestinians believe Hamas actively seeks the demise of the PA. But even fewer doubt collapse would wound Fatah more and that Hamas would be the ultimate beneficiary. Hamas has always viewed the PA as a threat as much as a representative. Looking for an out, the PA pulls like a tug in a storm, now trying to put together a new government in the wake of resignation of Mahmoud Abbas, now trying to wrest the political agenda from Israel's mortal obsession with Arafat. Last week it finally agreed to "unify" the various Palestinian police forces under one command. But that command is not going to be an "empowered prime minister", as called for in the roadmap. It is going to be the PLO's National Security Council, as demanded (and headed) by Arafat. The Fatah Central Council has also decreed that of the next government's 24 ministers, 16 will come from within its ranks, mostly veterans and Arafat loyalists. The significance of these two decisions is clear to every Palestinian observer. Israel and the US may insist that nothing can move with the present Palestinian leader; Arafat is using the crisis to demonstrate that nothing at all is going to move without him. Beyond these gestures there is one political initiative. On Tuesday Arafat's newly appointed security advisor, Jibril Rajoub, proposed an "unlimited and comprehensive Palestinian cease- fire". Unlike the unilateral truce that went up in the flames of a Hamas bus bombing in Jerusalem last month this one would be "mutual", he says. The PA would declare an end to all acts of Palestinian violence in return for Israelis ending "their attacks and lifting the blockades and closures over the Palestinian population". Hamas is said to be on side with the proposal, since it essentially rehearses its own terms for a truce. Israel dismissed it out of hand. "A cease-fire will never serve as a basis for moving forward in the diplomatic process. What is needed is not a cease-fire but real Palestinian reform and action against the terrorist infrastructure," said a government official within hours of Rajoub's statement. Few Palestinians believe America will do much to force Israel to change its position. In the meantime all are aware that the only thing that separates Israel's decision to remove Arafat "in principle", from the actual execution of that removal, is the American veto. Should that be lifted "nothing will protect him from what Sharon decides", says the aide.
