The fundamental weakness of the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993 is that they failed to address the important issues, such as Jerusalem, borders, settlements, refugees and sovereignty. Rather they stressed symbolic “confidence building measures” which were largely cosmetic, such as flags, airports and stamps.

As we move further into what the Palestinians call the ‘Al Aqsa Intifada’ it becomes clear that only a handful of possibilities still exist to bring an end to the conflict. Here we look at several possibilities:

Israel rules — an extreme scenario

Dr Asad Abdul Rahman is in charge of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and holder of the ministerial portfolio on refugees. As a member of the senior negotiating team in the now defunct multilateral peace talks, he recently drew up one of the most severe scenarios of what the months ahead might bring for the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. According to Abdul Rahman, recent events, in which hundreds of Palestinians have been killed and thousands wounded, were planned by the Israeli right wing eager to take advantage of increasing international leniency towards Israel’s right-wing policies.

The original ‘Sharon Plan’ has always been to ‘transfer’ most of the 1.8 million Palestinians in the West Bank to Jordan

“Sharon’s decision to come to Jerusalem and visit the holy sanctuary was a calculated move meant to stir up the population and ignite violence,” says Abdul Rahman. “The right wing in Israel wants to try to get away with the original ‘Sharon Plan’, which has always been to ‘transfer’ most of the 1.8 million Palestinians in the West Bank to Jordan because, according to Sharon ‘Jordan is Palestine’,” Abdul Rahman explained.

Jordan under King Abdullah II is a much calmer country than it was under his father, but some analysts, like Abdul Rahman, believe the Israelis want to create a situation where an excuse could be found for expelling large numbers of Palestinians into Jordan, much as was done in 1967, thereby ‘creating’ Palestine in Jordan.

While the proponents of this theory are few, many feel that if the US and EU remain ‘observers’ of the situation such a scenario is not out of the question.

Liberate every inch

The flip side of the Sharon Plan scenario is that propounded by Fatah leaders like Marwan Barghouti. As the largest political party in the Palestinian areas, Fatah has been the visible leader of the recent uprising, sidelining the Islamic parties and leaving the leftists at bay.

Addressing students at the West Bank University, the charismatic leader of the new Intifada declared that every village, city, town, refugee camp and “every street” which is part of the 1967 borderlines would be liberated from Israeli occupation. “Bit by bit we will liberate every inch of land, we will grind them down with our low intensity war and continue with our peaceful Intifada,” Barghouti told a cheering crowed. Much to the dismay of officials close to Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat, Barghouti publicly advised him not to go to Washington for the 18th time and “get nothing, as usual” in return from either the Israelis or the Americans.

While the Palestinian business community laments the loss of some $10 million a day in income for the Palestinian economy, the average man and woman on the street is willing to continue with the current Intifada. Overwhelming popular belief among the people is that the occupation must end and they are willing to continue what amounts to the continuation of low intensity warfare against the Israelis, even if it means a daily increase in the number of Palestinian casualties.

One clear outcome of the recent events has been a clear shift in the popular appeal of the existing Palestinian leadership. A new generation of Fatah leaders has “just taken over” since hostilities began (see page 4, TME November 2000).

Arafat sells out — or holds out for a better deal?

Despite claims to the contrary, Yasser Arafat has largely lost his grip of power over the Palestinian population in the West Bank and to a lesser degree in the Gaza Strip. He remains, in Barghouti’s words, “our historic and symbolic leader”. But that is about as far as it goes for the 72-year-old Arafat. Not wanting to go down in history as the man who oversaw the ‘sell-out’, he has let events run their course and now claims to be a democrat, “listening to the will of his people”.

Sources close to Arafat say that there has been ‘tremendous’ pressure exerted by the Israeli and American secret services to force the demonstrations to stop, put an end to the stone throwing and the occasional burst of sub-machine gun fire by Palestinian police. Undoubtedly the police can be told to stop firing and they will stop. However, the rock throwing is hardly something anyone will be able to control, and the Palestinian police would be well advised not to try lest they should get ‘hit on the head’.

Arafat is genuinely interested in going down in history as a hero. There will be no sell-out.

The widespread corruption of many of the Arafat’s inner circle has been carefully documented by foreign secret services who have now threatened to go public if Arafat does not submit to their demands. What they do not seem to realise is that Arafat simply could not care less. The chairman is well aware that his cronies, on whom he too has files, have various skeletons in their cupboards. And at this late stage of his rule Arafat is genuinely interested in going down in history as a hero. He will hold out for the maximum return, in spite of his inner circle, till the end. There will be no sell-out.

On The Street — Pressure on the US

Although the Arab and Muslim ‘masses’ have never been very effective in ‘fighting’ Israel, they retain the power to make their own leaders feel uncomfortable and, in the case of Egypt and Jordan, downright threatened. Since the 28 September Intifada broke out, discontent in the Arab world has spread like wildfire. Overtures, to the US in particular, have been frowned upon for the first time since the Gulf War and even the millions of dollars in aid packages given to moderate states have not helped the leaders of these countries endear themselves to their people. “They are seen as having ‘sold out’ for not doing enough to help the Palestinians in their war against Israel,” said an Arab commentator in Cairo.

Populist Palestinian politicians are effectively counting on ‘Arab’ or ‘Muslim’ street sentiment to pressure the governments of the region to ‘appeal’ to the US leadership in particular to put pressure on Israel to ‘give the Palestinians what they want’.

Israel does not give a hoot about Arab sentiment when it feels its security is at risk; its’ right-wing politicians have always propagated the belief that the Arabs are the ‘enemies of Israel’, no matter what. With this continuation of hatred, the pressure on Arab leaders to distance themselves from both Israel and its American backers is increasing. “ The US has to reassess its strategic interests in the region,” said Asad Abdul Rahman. “Is Israel worth its price in gold? Is it really in the interest of the US, which is effectively the only foreign player on the ground, to alienate 240 million Arabs and one billion Muslims? They need to recalculate.”

A role for the UN

A potential role for the United Nations as a ‘peace-keeping’ force or ‘protector’ of Palestinian civilians is a potential interim solution to keep the two sides apart, argue analysts, including some in Chairman Arafat’s inner circle.

“More than ever before the Palestinians and Israelis are a people divided by their hatred of each other,” said a local NGO official. “The events of recent months have made this clear and we must deal with the intensification of the conflict by keeping the two sides apart.”

“We need protection,” said Ferial Hassan, the leader of the Palestinian Women’s Federation in Ramallah. “The presence of a UN force would be better than what we have now and could act as an international monitor to keep Israeli practices in check.”

We said from day one that Oslo could not work and the world condemned us as terrorists

Palestinians will push for a UN presence in area C, which is completely under Israeli control. Meanwhile, the Israelis, if they agree to a UN presence at all, will push for it to be stationed in area B (under joint control) or in area A (under full Palestinian control).

Whatever happens from this point, the relationship and status of 27 September 2000 will never exist again.

“We waited for seven years for the truth to become apparent to all,” said a spokesman for the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, addressing an audience in Ramallah. “We said from day one that Oslo could not work and the world condemned us as terrorists who did not want peace — when in reality we were speaking the truth that no one wanted to hear... At last we have been vindicated.”

Responding to criticism against Fatah, that under the guise of ‘negotiations’ the Israelis were given an undue opportunity to stir up trouble, Barghouti said: “We will keep all avenues open. Arafat will talk and we will keep the Intifada alive... until liberation.”

Copyright © IC Publications Limited 2001. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means or used for any business purpose without the written consent of the publisher. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained herein is as accurate as possible, the publisher cannot accept responsibility for any consequences arising from its use.

Back to the top
Contents