President Bush's demand for a "moderate" Palestinian leadership to replace Yasser Arafat is doomed from the start, writes Ayman El-Amir*, it being impossible to find a leader who will both fulfil Palestinian aspirations and meet Sharon's demands United States President George W Bush has made the removal of Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat the central issue of his vision of a Middle East peace settlement, including the creation of a Palestinian state within three years. He has made it clear that he would not accept the re-election of Arafat, should the Palestinian people so decide in the legislative and presidential elections scheduled for January 2003. He wants a "new and different leadership". In the political definition of the Bush administration, this is a leadership that would cooperate with the United States, renounce armed resistance against the Israeli occupation and negotiate an acceptable settlement with Ariel Sharon. Bush has made the Palestinians an offer they cannot refuse: they can either accept the successful American model in Afghanistan or be left to the mercy of Sharon's murderous war machine. The United States is a global power with vital strategic interests. Contrary to popular belief, the Palestinian problem is not one of them. No matter how apocalyptic the situation may seem to the Arabs, the United States does not see "a clear and present danger" that could threaten its national security interests in the Middle East. Unlike the military escalation that developed between India and Pakistan recently, there is no imminent threat of a regional war. Oil- producing countries have no plans to interrupt the flow of oil. Israel is in no mortal danger. Friendly countries are in control and unfriendly regimes are in check. The only clear and present danger is the threat of terrorism. The fight against terrorism, not the Palestinian problem, is what drives the American agenda in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the world. One has to admit that despite the best efforts of Arab leaders, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has won the heart and mind of Washington. He has persuaded the Bush administration and Congress that "suicide bombers" spawned by "terrorist organisations" are the single most lethal threat to both Israeli and US security interests, and to peace in the Middle East. Working with the heavy-handed Jewish lobby, and building on the psychology of 11 September, Sharon has managed to separate the Palestinian armed resistance from its causes, forging it into "acts of terrorism" that no cause can redeem. That is why all Arab pleadings have failed to impress Washington of the connection between the brutality of Israeli occupation, the agony of Palestinian desperation and terrorism. Cherie Blair, wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, was reprimanded, and later recanted her comments on the bombing at a bus stop in Israel on 19 June, having said that "as long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress." The effect is inexorably separated from the cause. To recognise the cause is to give the effect a measure of legitimacy. Finally, Sharon has convinced Bush that there can be no peace or progress as long as Yasser Arafat remains as the head of the Palestinian Authority. In the words of Sharon, paraphrased by Bush, Yasser Arafat cannot be considered a peace partner. Palestinian human bombs have raised the stakes in the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. According to a poll in The New York Times last week, at least 550 Israelis and 1,600 Palestinians have been killed since the second Palestinian uprising erupted in September 2000. The ratio of almost one Israeli casualty to three Palestinians goes beyond the tolerance levels that Israel can sustain. The sympathy of the US administration goes up with every Israeli victim struck down by a Palestinian human bomber. However, there is virtually no sympathy for Palestinian suffering under Israeli occupation and retaliation. It has, therefore, been speculated that the more brutal the pressure on the Palestinian population is, the sooner they will seek the replacement of Yasser Arafat. In the wide-scale offensive against terrorism, the United States seems to have prosecuted a successful strategy in Afghanistan. It has dealt the Taliban a severe blow, ousted their regime, established a new government, recruited new allies in the region and built a global, albeit half-hearted, coalition against terrorism. So why not try the same recipe in the Middle East? One of the preconditions for Bush's plan is the reform of the Palestinian Authority. There is little disagreement among the Palestinians themselves, as well as among the Arabs and the Europeans that reform is long overdue. The PA has long been criticised for mismanagement, autocracy and nepotism. But to reform the PA in the interest of the Palestinians is one thing, and to meet the demands of Sharon's sinister agenda is another. The problem with carrying out the needed reforms is that Bush's peace plan seems to require US oversight and certification. The Palestinian leadership seems uncomfortable with that, but it has little choice. President Arafat has already started to merge different Palestinian security agencies under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. This merger will have the singular mission of controlling the Palestinian resistance organisations. Under the Bush plan, the US seems willing to exercise all kinds of pressure to influence the pace and outcome of Palestinian reform. This will include the selection of a cast of "moderate" Palestinians who can replace Yasser Arafat and "hard-line" Palestinian leaders. The new leadership's priority will be to chase Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and the Al- Aqsa Martyrs Brigades out of existence. Finding the alternative leadership that could meet the Bush's conditions among "the many Palestinian talents" Bush referred to will be the litmus test. Over the years, Arafat has come to represent Palestinian resistance against the evils of Israeli occupation and subjugation. The trouble with a US-picked Palestinian leader is that US and Israeli agendas are so much intertwined that it would be next to impossible to find an alternative leader who can meet Sharon's demands and at the same time fulfil a modicum of Palestinian aspirations. Sharon is neither interested in Palestinian statehood nor in Palestinian existence. Ariel Sharon, not Yasser Arafat, is the Bush plan's worst enemy. Arab reactions to President Bush's flawed peace plan have been varied. But the requirement of political decorum usually dictates papering over the flaws in the plan by putting a positive spin on it. This would provide a breathing spell for further negotiations and lobbying. That is what some Arab governments and the Palestinian Authority are trying to do. Arab leaders elaborated and endorsed a framework for peace in the Middle East at the Arab Summit conference held in Beirut in March. President Bush has now thrown the ball back into the Arab court with a plan that has raised many eyebrows, even in the US administration itself. It may not be inconsistent for the Arab Summit's follow-up committee to seek the views of Arab heads of state and government in order to formulate a consensus Arab response to the plan President Bush has offered. Bush's peace plan seems to offer the Palestinians a joint American-Israeli opportunity. Abba Eban, the former Israeli foreign minister, once had this demeaning statement to make about the Palestinians: "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." However, the fact is that the Palestinians' only opportunity is the reality of their own resistance, not the sympathy of the powers that be. * The writer is former director of the United Nations Radio and Television in New York. He previously served as correspondent for Al-Ahram in Washington, DC.
