Ibrahim Nafiebelieves that now is the time to push for a comprehensive settlement in Palestine A new Palestinian government has been born, following sharp differences between two leaders, each backed by a lengthy record of dedication to their national cause. Aggravating the difficulties of this birth were various attempts to distort the nature of the differences between these two leaders. It was claimed, for example, that one had refused to transfer significant powers to the newly appointed prime minister, while the latter had set his sights on securing Palestinian leadership exclusively for himself. This spin on the situation does considerable injustice to both men. Yasser Arafat, who led his people through some of their most arduous periods of national struggle, is the same leader who signed the Oslo accords and spearheaded the process of mutual recognition between the Palestinian people and Israel. Long one of Arafat's right-hand men, Mahmoud Abbas, or Abu Mazen, was instrumental in sustaining the spirit of resistance during the Palestinians' most critical junctures. In addition, many are aware that Arafat chose Abu Mazen as his successor, a choice welcomed by all regional and international powers. Any intimation, therefore, that the selection of Abu Mazen as Palestinian prime minister was brought about by US-European pressure is especially tendentious. In my opinion, the differences between Arafat and Abu Mazen have been grossly overplayed. In a sense, this was understandable in light of the US's insistence that it would not reveal the "roadmap" until a new Palestinian government was formed and approved by the Palestinian legislature. Accentuating such pressures was the fact that the Israeli government sought to tie Abu Mazen's hands even before he assumed the responsibilities of office. That numerous Israeli statements were worded to suggest Abu Mazen's selection as an Israeli demand seemed expressly geared to tarnish his image among the Palestinian public and to heighten the tenor of discord with Arafat. There was also a considerable element of sensationalism in the media coverage of the dispute between the two Palestinian figures. Some reports had gone so far as to suggest that the lifelong association between these two companions on the road to Palestinian liberation had ruptured, and that the situation between them had so degenerated as to obviate a compromise. However exaggerated such reports, there have been serious differences. In some cases it has taken Egyptian diplomacy to bridge the gap. In his visit to Ramallah, the head of Egyptian intelligence, Omar Suleiman, succeeded in breaking the deadlock, after which Arafat called upon the Palestinian parliament to give the government of Abu Mazen its vote of confidence. Egyptian diplomacy has thus proved instrumental in defusing the crisis, once again opening up an avenue for the creation of a new Palestinian government. This will likely be followed by Abu Mazen's invitation to the White House as a prelude to the announcement of the roadmap. Moreover, once the crisis passed, Abu Mazen reaffirmed the fundamental principles of the Palestinian cause and simultaneously declared that he would not leave Palestine until Israel had lifted its blockade against Arafat, a position that put paid to the spurious contentions concerning Arafat's future. With the creation of the Abu Mazen government peace negotiations are once again within reach. However, laying out the roadmap, which envisages the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005, is one thing; putting it into effect is quite another. If the parties involved fail to commit themselves thoroughly to their respective obligations, the peace process will run aground, with unpredictable consequences for the region as a whole. Without a doubt, Israel holds the key to the success or failure of the roadmap. It has the power to push the negotiating process forward, or to lead it into another dead end. The Palestinians have already fulfilled most of their end of the bargain in preparation for the resumption of negotiations. Israel, on the other hand, has yet to demonstrate a sincere commitment to a political process that will ultimately restore the Palestinian people their full rights in accordance with provisions of international law. Unfortunately, the Israeli government still appears determined to undermine Palestinian efforts to prepare the climate for the resumption of peace negotiations. Claims that Sharon has changed, that he has become the man of peace he was once billed as during his February 2001 electoral campaign, do not hold water against his sustained policy of terror against the Palestinian people, and his ongoing assassinations of Palestinian political activists. Indeed, it often seems that he is deliberately bent on provoking Palestinian organisations into violent responses so that he can unleash further aggression, all the while attributing the disruption of calm to the Palestinians. Meanwhile, he continues to deceive international public opinion, a perfect example of which is his slight of hand over the issue of dismantling Israeli settlements. The Israeli prime minister has declared that he is prepared to dismantle some 70 settlements. These settlements were not officially authorised by the Israeli government, he is reported to have said. In fact, all Israeli settlements on occupied territory are illegal under international law. Israeli public opinion must therefore come to terms with the fact that Sharon must change, and that as long as he continues to play with words while meting out terror against the Palestinian people, the roadmap does not stand a chance. Indeed, the situation will grow far worse in the event that the Sharon government fails to live up to its obligations, especially after the Palestinians have done everything required of them. This is not to say, however, that the Palestinians do not shoulder a certain amount of responsibility for ensuring the success of the roadmap. Above all, they must give the greatest amount of support possible to the new Abu Mazen-led government to enable it to exercise the powers conferred upon it. In the past, the Palestinians have tried various forms of armed resistance through which they have scored many gains for their cause. It is impossible to deny that the creation of a Palestinian authority and the US's official recognition of the Palestinians' right to an independent state within the pre-June 1967 borders would never have occurred had it not been for a sustained period of national struggle. However, the Palestinians must also recognise that regional and international circumstances have changed considerably. They must further acknowledge that the creation of the Palestinian Authority on Palestinian land was the product of a lengthy negotiating process that demanded considerable forbearance, as well as the realisation that the means of resistance can be accommodated to the demands of reality without diminishing the value of resistance as a principle and legitimate right in the face of unlawful occupation. Such considerations render it imperative for all Palestinian factions and organisations to give the Abu Mazen government every opportunity to push for the realisation of its vision. If its efforts succeed in bringing about a comprehensive settlement that will lead to true peace, everyone will stand to gain. If they fail -- a prospect we cannot rule out in light of the lack of confidence in the Sharon government -- the route of armed struggle will once again emerge as an option. Indeed, in such an event, no one will be able to blame the Palestinians for pursuing new modes of combat in order to exercise their internationally sanctioned right to resist foreign occupation. Now, with the creation of the new Palestinian government, it is essential to get the ball rolling on the Palestinian track as quickly as possible. World opinion is keener than ever to see a just solution to the plight of the Palestinians and is firmer than ever in its conviction for the need to grant Palestinians their legitimate rights -- above all their right to independent statehood. This universal aspiration was made abundantly clear during the Anglo-American war against Iraq. Thus it is absolutely imperative to strike the iron while it is hot. We Arabs must now give Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) all of our support as he confronts the challenges that await him. We must help to generate a supportive climate conducive to the difficult negotiations he will enter into with the current Israeli government. In this regard, it is possible to consider a specific time frame for such efforts. A year, for example, should provide sufficient opportunity for the pursuit of negotiations without recourse to armed resistance, although other forms of peaceful resistance may still remain open. At the same time, the US and Britain will also have an important role to play in ensuring the success of the roadmap. Their resolve in this regard will be put to a difficult test in the coming period. President Bush has officially pledged to resolve the Palestinian- Israeli conflict and help create a Palestinian state by 2005. His British counterpart, Prime Minister Tony Blair, has reiterated this commitment on numerous occasions. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the US has the crucial task of ensuring that the roadmap gets off to a good start and remains on course. Moreover, Washington must realise that it will be held responsible, even before Israel, should the roadmap fail. It remains to be seen whether Washington will adhere to the pledges that it has made, which will lead to a lasting solution to the Palestinian plight. Or will Washington content itself with publishing the roadmap and leaving the Sharon government to deal with it in a manner that might lead to yet more disaster?
