Once again, Arafat is proving that he cannot easily be unseated, writes Mohamed Sid-Ahmed After months of being sidelined and forced to adopt a defensive posture, Arafat has gone on the offensive. Following Israel's assassination of senior Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab in retaliation for the Jerusalem suicide bus bombing that killed 21 people, Colin Powell broke the hitherto strict American boycott of the Palestinian leader with a public appeal to Arafat to make the security apparatus still under his control available to his Prime Minister Abu Mazen. But instead of responding to Powell's request, Arafat did just the opposite, tightening his grip on the national security, general intelligence and military intelligence forces under his command in what is seen as a clear message that he is still the leader and that he still retains control of an important card. Arafat created a new security post, counsellor for Palestinian national security, to which he appointed one of his loyalists, former West Bank security chief Jibril Rajoub. He is also trying to get his nominee, Nasser Youssef, appointed to the post of interior minister, which would make Abu Mazen's security chief Mohamed Dahlan subordinate to him. Arafat is reasserting his primacy in Palestinian politics at a time of acute crisis in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. After reorganising the top echelons of the Palestinian Authority to signal to all concerned that he is still in the saddle and that it will take more than an American-Israeli decision to dislodge him, Arafat called on all Palestinian factions to restore national unity and to reinstate the truce in order to give international efforts to implement the roadmap a chance of success. But all parties opposed Arafat's stand, each from his own standpoint. Washington considered the appointment of Rajoub a step that obstructed the roadmap and made Abu Mazen's task more difficult. White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said that Palestinian security forces must be consolidated under the leadership of Abu Mazen, not Arafat, despite the fact that he is the only selected Palestinian leader. Abu Mazen reacted by asking the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Ahmed Qureia, to convene a special session of the Council to discuss his report on future developments, as well as to take a parliamentary vote either renewing confidence in his government, proposing changes in its composition or withdrawing confidence altogether and demanding its removal. With this move, Abu Mazen is widening the debate beyond Fateh and the government, extending it to the Palestinian parliament and, thus, to representatives of other factions as well. As to Israel, it has dismissed Arafat's statement as nothing but propaganda and announced that it would continue to target militants until the Palestinian Authority dismantles their organisations. Israeli officials assert that after Hamas claimed responsibility for the recent suicide bombing of a bus in Jerusalem there can no longer be any doubt that it is a terrorist organisation, and that Arafat is standing in the way of a security crackdown by the PA against it. Speaking on Israeli Radio, Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said "We have no choice but to act with severity against the terrorist infrastructure. As long as the PA does not dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, there will be a continuation of this process." One of Sharon's advisers, Raanan Gissin, said that Arafat "needs to get a real ultimatum that if he does not stop scuttling the peace process his immunity will be removed", that is, his dismissal will be enforced. Acting in terms of this ultimatum, Israel has decided to organise a worldwide campaign against Hamas, and not to limit its efforts to putting pressure on Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority. Next Saturday, the foreign ministers of the European Union will hold an informal meeting in Italy. Israel is planning to use the occasion to press for drastic sanctions by the EU against the more radical Palestinian factions, notably Hamas. European foreign ministers have already condemned the Izzeddin Al-Qassam phalanxes, the military wing of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but have so far held off from condemning the political branch of Hamas. But in the light of recent developments they seem ready to take more radical steps. However, France has voiced its concern that these steps could backfire, not least because the many charitable organisations run by Hamas help alleviate the intolerable suffering of the Palestinians and serve as a safety valve that prevents the situation getting totally out of hand. Already, measures have been taken by the Palestinian Authority to freeze the bank accounts of a number of Palestinian charitable organisations and this has triggered demonstrations in Gaza. Over two thousand people took to the streets shouting slogans such as "leave us to live in dignity," "we are not terrorists," and "freezing the accounts is a crime". Arafat is betting on the fact that the Palestinian factions cannot do without him and that, sooner or later they will realise that the real battle is with Israel and that he is the only leader with the legitimacy and clout to lead the Palestinian people. Depriving Arafat of his security forces and delivering them to Abu Mazen and Dahlan would be seen as caving in to foreign dictates. "The unity of the security forces should be in the fashion the Palestinians choose, not in a fashion imposed on them," said the PA Minister of Communications Azzam Ahmed. That is why Arafat will continue to oppose transferring the security forces until such time as the Americans recognise his role as vital to any peace efforts. His call on militant groups to reiterate their commitment to the truce was rejected by Hamas and dismissed by the US and Israel, who are not ready to settle for anything less than the complete dismantling of what they call the terrorist networks. As far as Hamas activists are concerned, decommissioning is not an option, Arafat has declared that he is prepared to act against the militants "provided Israel halts missile strikes and other attacks against them; I am not ready to trigger a civil war." The question is whether the United States and Israel are equally keen to avoid such an eventuality. Bush has stated that the US will not end the war on terrorism nor its occupation of Iraq, despite the high casualty toll and the widening circle of criticism. The number of American soldiers killed in Iraq since the official end of hostilities (140) has already exceeded those killed during the war (138). The American administration blames the attacks on remnants of Saddam loyalists, as well as on what it calls "foreign terrorists". Bush claims that while two-thirds of Al-Qa'eda's members have either been arrested or killed, their network has not been completely dismantled and they still constitute a danger. Although 42 of the 55 Iraqi officials on America's pack of cards have been arrested or killed, Bush has announced that he will not rest until the remaining 13 have been caught. With the rising body count and the growing criticism from opponents on both his left and his right, the continued occupation of Iraq is expected to be a key issue in the US presidential elections. Judging by the recent attack on the UN's Baghdad headquarters and the Najev bombing targeting Shi'ite leader Baqir Al-Hakim, the situation is expected to deteriorate still further. The general deterioration of the situation is a serious handicap for Bush. Iraq is still suffering from continuous interruptions in its electricity and water supplies, which are constantly being exposed to deliberate acts of sabotage. Ensuring the availability of clean drinking water for the country as a whole will take four years and cost some 16 billion dollars. According to the civil administrator, Paul Bremer, the money will come from the US government as well as from 45 other countries which pledged to allocate funds for the reconstruction of Iraq. The problem is that many of these countries are now backing down from their commitments. Bremer estimates that the cost of rebuilding Iraq's basic infrastructure will run into tens of billions of dollars in the coming year alone and says he will try to convince the Bush administration to provide the money. According to recently published US government reports, the US war against Iraq will raise the US deficit in the year to come to approximately half a trillion dollars. Statistics presented by Congress warn that the overall deficit in the decade to come will reach an unprecedented level: around 1.4 trillion dollars instead of a previous expected surplus under Clinton of 891 billion dollars. Moreover, the US now has to carry the burden of the expenses of the war, estimated at one billion dollars a week, at a time the budget deficit surpasses anything ever experienced. Does such a situation augur well for Bush's prospects of re-election, or will his desperate attempts to salvage the situation plunge America -- and the world -- into still greater cataclysms?
