What is good for Iraq is also good for Palestine

by Michael Jansen

The last week of Ramadan was doubly tragic for the Arabs. Palestinian President Yasser Arafat lay in a deep coma in a Paris hospital while US Marines, bolstered by some Iraqi forces, mounted an offensive against the rebel Iraqi town of Fallujah.

On the one hand, "Mr Palestine", the figure who put Palestine back on the world map, had left his people without a charismatic leader before they achieved self-determination in an independent state. On the other hand, the Iraqi national resistance in Fallujah was fighting a battle it had lost before it even began against a vastly superior enemy who showed no mercy towards fighter or civilian and did not distinguish between bunker or hospital. Nevertheless, the disappearance of Arafat and the fall of Fallujah ensure that the struggles of both Palestinians and Iraqis for liberation will continue.

It is ironic, however, that Arafat, the autocrat who founded the Palestine National Liberation movement, Fateh, in 1958, won control of the PLO in 1968 and was elected Palestinian president in 1996, bequeaths his people with the legal and institutional framework for establishing a democratic government while the people of Iraq, freed from the totalitarian Baathist regime by a democratic US, have not yet drafted a constitution or created the fledgling representative bodies which are the bases of democracy.

As a result of this week's bitter developments, the Palestinians and Iraqis are supposed to go to their separate polling stations in January to choose the men and women who will govern and build modern states.

Before the Palestinians can go to the polls, they have to overcome Israel's objections, which does not want a new democratic leadership to emerge in the Palestinian territories. As far as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is concerned, Arafat confined to his compound in Ramallah was the perfect option. Sharon could blame Arafat for the violence of the Intifada while knowing that Arafat could do little to stop attacks on Israel and Israelis. Because Arafat could not bring about an end to hostilities, Sharon could claim that he was not a "partner" in peace-making and refuse to negotiate with any Palestinian interlocutor who took orders from Arafat. As a result, the Palestinians have suffered nearly three years of Israeli warfare, siege, closure and international isolation.

Now that Arafat is out of the picture, Sharon may have to negotiate with the Palestinians over the West Bank and, even, begin to discuss with them his plan for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. If Sharon refuses to talk to the post-Arafat Palestinian leadership - particularly Mahomud Abbas and Ahmed Qureia, the authors of the Oslo accords - the Israeli premier will reveal that it is he, rather than Arafat, who has been the obstacle to peace all along.

Without elections, the US will have no "end game" for Iraq, no justification for the "liberation", occupation and political manipulation of the country and its people. But before they can go to the polls, Iraqis must overcome the opposition of the resistance which remains determined to liberate Iraq from US occupation. Unless Iraqis enjoy a minimum of security and stability the elections, scheduled for the end of January, cannot be held.

But by staging an all out offensive against Fallujah, the Bush administration may have finished off the election of the provisional parliament, the culmination of the second step in the drawn out democratisation process which, Washington says, will end when a fully sovereign national assembly is chosen and forms a government at the end of 2005. Sunnis angered over the onslaught on Fallujah have threatened to boycott the poll, depriving it of representativity and credibility.

Unfortunately, therefore, the US insistence on a "military solution" for Fallujah may prove to be a major obstacle to the creation of democracy in Iraq. The resistance has shown itself to be resilient and resourceful by striking at Iraqi police posts and other targets associated with the US occupation at the very time the Marines were storming Fallujah. The loss of Fallujah by the rebels is unlikely to halt resistance activities. Furthermore, a large proportion of the Iraqi populace is likely to be angered and alienated by the conquest of Fallujah, a city celebrated because of its resistance to British occupation in 1920.

Europe has pledged to do all it can to help the Palestinian National Authority conduct elections for president and, perhaps, for a new legislative council, within the 60 days of Arafat's demise or incapacity, as laid down in the authority's Basic Law or constitution. All the European leaders need to do is to say to the Bush administration - which normally adopts Sharon's positions on Palestinian issues - that it cannot fight for elections in Iraq while going along with Israel's rejection of elections in Palestine. Furthermore, even if the US has wrecked the chances of a democratic consultation in Iraq, it has to do everything in its power to ensure that the Palestinians can chose a new slate of leaders. What is good for Iraq is also good for Palestine. There can be no excuse for depriving Palestinians of what the US is trying to provide for Iraqis.

This article was published in the Thursday, November 11, 2004 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.