The symbiotic relationship

by George S. Hishmeh

Whether by design or coincidence, the United States and Israel are nowadays strange bedfellows in a pace-setting adventure next January that could herald a new beginning in the Middle East or spell disaster for all - the election of a Palestinian successor to the charismatic Yasser Arafat and a new Baghdad regime that could bring an end to the carnage in Iraq; of course, unless one succeeds and the other fails, which will make the future more troublesome for the loser.

The occupiers of these two key Arab countries, the United States and Israel, cast a heavy shadow on them, which will be difficult to remove without some political farsightedness in both Washington and Tel Aviv.

The first election will take place in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip on Jan. 9. The second election is scheduled for Jan. 30 in Iraq to replace the US-appointed interim government there. A lot rides on the success of these two major events.

There is no doubt that the Palestinians moved admirably - energetically and straightforwardly - towards scheduling, as promulgated by their new constitution, the election of a new president within 60 days following the death of their leader. Arafat died of an undisclosed illness in a French military hospital on Nov. 11, coincidentally the anniversary of the end of World War I, known internationally as Armistice Day.

Although the election of a new Palestinian president is much awaited worldwide, primarily to jump-start the moribund Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, many Palestinians are eager to see this election followed by new parliamentary elections, to bring new blood into the Palestinian Legislative Council which has been in office since 1966.

However, holding new and credible parliamentary elections at the same time as the presidential race is seen by some Palestinians as necessary to stave off Palestinian infighting, as was evident last week in Gaza. It would also give "a golden opportunity" to the extremist Islamist groups to become involved in the Palestinian political process.

Khalil Shikaki, director of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, does not believe that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are interested in the presidential elections. "But, I believe, they are very much interested in gaining a very important and strong opposition voice in the political institutions," he said in an interview with bitterlemons.org, an Internet newsletter that presents Palestinian and Israeli viewpoints. "I think they recognise that because they failed to do so in 1996, they became highly marginal in Palestinian politics for the next four years, 1996 to 2000. I doubt very much they would want to repeat that mistake."

The nomination of Mahmoud Abbas (among others) for the presidency of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was expected after he was recently named chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which is actually the negotiating partner of Israel. As a matter of fact, the PNA has been designated as an interim body while the PLO is recognised as the organisation that represents all Palestinians, a reminder that Palestinians living outside the West Bank and the Gaza Strip should, at one point or another, participate in the election of the Palestinian leadership that will negotiate the "final status" agreement with Israel.

But this praiseworthy Palestinian effort is only half the cup. The other half should be filled by Israel (and the Bush administration). Much as Israel has assured visiting US Secretary of State Colin Powell, his first visit this week to the region in 18 months, there are still disturbing signs that it will not be a smooth ride. Israeli commitments to date are general and not specific, failing to meet, as in one case, a Palestinian demand that it stops its "targeted killings" which have been a major factor in the escalation of violence there. Even the obvious need to withdraw Israeli troops from major Palestinian cities and towns or the elimination of roadblocks to allow full and unfettered participation in the election campaign has yet to be promised by the Sharon government.

Washington has not been equally forthcoming, especially after President George Bush seemed to have reneged on his earlier promise that a Palestinian state will be set in 2005 and not, as is his view at present, by the end of his four-year term. This was sweet jasmine for Zalman Shoval, the former Israeli ambassador in Washington who is at present a senior adviser to Sharon. He wrote in The Washington Star that Bush "does not see himself bound by a 2005 deadline or by any sort of strict timetable". He continued: "Nor is there need now for another international conference or a special envoy. The only viable and practical route is that of the Sharon `disengagement plan'." He obviously forgot all talk about the 37-year occupation or expansion of illegal settlements, about which US Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage acknowledged in an interview last weekend: "We're not going to ultimately be successful in our search for peace unless settlements stop."

Israel's performance in the Palestinian territories in the runup to the Palestinian election will no doubt reflect down the line on the American-led occupation of Iraq where the stakes are equally high and more complicated now that the Iraqis are scheduled to elect a new government. This symbiotic relationship between the two occupiers could usher a new regimen in the Arab world, should the Palestinians succeed in their objective. It could expedite the pace for the US to extricate itself from the Iraqi quagmire which was evident in the devastation last week at Fallujah. The United States and Israel cannot afford a failure in this major test of their intentions.

This article was published in the Friday-Saturday, November 26-27, 2004 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.