Now it’s official: “the First Democracy in the Arab World” or “the Second Democracy in theMiddle East ” has been born.
The Palestinian elections have impressed the world. Until now, if elections were held inany Arab country at all, there was only one candidate, and he received 99.62% of the vote. Yethere there were seven candidates, there was a lively election campaign and the winningcandidate got only 62%.
The truth is, of course, that Palestinian democracy existed already. In 1996, thePalestinians held elections for the presidency and the parliament, monitored byinternational observers. Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian struggle forliberation, was not the only one standing; another candidate, Samikha Khalil, a respectedwoman, did garner almost 10% of the vote. But because of Arafat’s dominant personality, theinsufficient separation between the branches of government and the relentless Israelidefamation campaign against him, many people around the world did not recognize thePalestinian democracy.
Now the situation is different. Nobody can deny the near-miracle that has happened: theclean transition from the Arafat era to the era of his successors, and the fair elections heldunder strict international supervision . And, most importantly, democracy was not imposedfrom the outside, at the whim of a foreign president, but grew from below. And not under normalconditions, but under a brutal occupation.
The whole world acknowledges the Palestinian democracy. That, by itself, creates a newpolitical situation.
Much now depends on the personality of Abu-Mazen. He is setting out under the shadow of hisgreat predecessor. Those who succeed a Founding Father always have a problem at thebeginning, like the heirs of Bismarck or Ben-Gurion.
Just think of the man who succeeded Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, the founder of modern Egypt andthe idol of the entire Arab world. When Nasser died, I asked my friend, Henry Curiel, what kindof person his almost unknown successor was.
Curiel, who founded the first (mainly Jewish) Egyptian Communist party, had arazor-sharp mind. In Paris he had set up a kind of international center of assistance forliberation movements the world over, while maintaining close ties to his homeland. Hisanswer was short and sharp: “Sadat is a simpleton.”
He was not alone in this view. Egyptians used to tell a joke about the dark spot on Sadat’sbrow: “At every meeting of the Free Officers Committee (that was then ruling the country) ,Nasser would ask his colleagues to express their opinion. One after the other they stood up andspoke. At the end, Sadat too would get up to speak. Nasser would put his finger on his brow andgently push him back into his chair, saying: Oh, sit down, Anwar!”
Yet upon assuming the presidency, Sadat astounded the world. He sent his army across theSuez Canal , achieving the first significant military victory ever over the Israeli army. Hisvisit to Jerusalem was a brilliant act without precedent in history. Never before had a leadervisited the capital of the enemy while still in a state of war.
Abu-Mazen has lived all his life in the shadow of Arafat. He was not a military leader,unlike the adored Abu-Jihad, who was murdered by Israel . He was not in command of the securityapparatus, unlike Abu-Iyad, who was murdered by Abu-Nidal. Since 1974, he was closelyassociated with Arafat’s historic efforts to achieve a political settlement with Israel ,and in charge of the contacts with the Israeli peace forces. I myself met him for the first timein Tunis , in 1983.
I shall not be surprised if Abu Mazen, as the president of the PalestinianState-in-the-Making, exhibits talents and attributes that did not find their properexpression during the Arafat era. He may yet become the Palestinian Sadat.
Of course, Abu-Mazen is very different from Sadat. The Egyptian leader had a dramaticflair (like Menachem Begin) , he loved big gestures (like Arafat). Abu-Mazen’s style is thevery opposite.
And another huge difference: Sadat was in absolute control of a big country. He couldafford to ignore different views. Abu-Mazen does not enjoy this luxury.
He brings with him to his job a valuable dowry: his relationship with the President of theUnited States .
George Bush is a simple fellow. He likes some people and hates others, and this decides thepolicy of the greatest power on earth. He likes Ariel Sharon and fawns on him. Since he has neverbeen in battle, he admires the combat-rich Israeli general. Sharon personifies for him theAmerican myth – the annihilation of the Indians and the conquest of the territories. Arafat,on the other hand, reminded him of an Indian chief, whose language is unintelligible and whoseploys are satanic.
When Bush saw Abu-Mazen in Aqaba, a respectable person in a business suit, without beardor keffiyeh, he liked him on sight. That’s why he congratulated him this week and invited him tothe White House. The question is whether Abu-Mazen can translate this attitude quickly intopolitical achievements.
The situation presents Sharon with a difficult dilemma. His natural inclination is to dounto Abu-Mazen what he did so successfully to Arafat: demonize him and cut his ties withAmerica . Already he is muttering darkly about Abu-Mazen’s unwillingness to destroy the“terrorist organizations”.
But Sharon knows that he must behave with the utmost care, so as not to make Bush angry. Aslong as Bush thinks that Abu-Mazen is O.K., Sharon must not be seen to undermine him. This, too,gives Abu-Mazen a chance.
So what can he do?
His first task is to come to terms with the refusal-organizations. No leader can conductnational policy with armed factions firing in the opposite direction.
Ben-Gurion was in a similar situation before the foundation of Israel, when faced withthe Irgun and the Stern Group who acted independently. Once he tried to integrate them into aunified “Hebrew Revolt Movement”, at another time he handed their fighters over to theBritish police. But it is essential to remember: Ben-Gurion started the decisiveconfrontation – by shelling the Irgun ship Altalena – only after the State of Israel hadalready come into being. Then the two organizations were incorporated into the new Israeliarmy.
Anyone who says that Abu-Mazen is ready or able to start a civil war against Hamas does notknow what he is talking about. Palestinian public opinion would not stand for it. MostPalestinians believe that without the armed struggle, Sharon would not be talking ofwithdrawing from Gaza . They are ready for a cease-fire in order to give Abu-Mazen a chance. Butthey do not want the liquidation of the fighting organizations, because it may be necessary torenew the armed struggle if Abu-Mazen can’t convince the Americans and the Israelis to enablethe Palestinians to realize their national aims.
In his dealings with Hamas, Abu-Mazen, like Arafat, will prefer a combination ofnegotiations, political pressure and mobilizing public opinion. He will have to convincethe armed factions to accept the national strategy that is adopted by the leadership. Inreturn, he will have to welcome Hamas into the political system, the PLO and the parliament.
The attack at the Karni crossing this week was a demonstration of power by the armedfactions. It was a classic guerilla action, much as the recent destruction of an army post onthe “Philadelphi Axis”. The organizations want to prove that they have not been vanquished,but rather that they have achieved a draw with the Israeli army. If a cease-fire is arranged, itwill not be a sign of weakness on their part. In the same way, the Yom Kippur attack preceded theEgyptian-Israeli peace, and the Hizbullah guerilla war preceded the withdrawal fromLebanon .
If Abu-Mazen achieves such a cease-fire, he will be able to address his main task: to winover Israeli and international public opinion and to change the policy of the United States .
Sadat succeeded in both. But Sadat was dealing with Menachem Begin, who was willing torelinquish Egyptian territory in order to continue his struggle against the Palestiniansand prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. Sharon, too, opposes the creation of aPalestinian state in all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with its capital in East Jerusalem. But Abu-Mazen, like Arafat, cannot and will not be satisfied with anything less than what isnow a sanctified aim.
That is another huge difference between Sadat and Abu-Mazen: Sadat came to Jerusalemonly after he was secretly assured that Begin was ready to give back all of Sinai. Sharon, on theother hand, is promising Abu-Mazen nothing at all.
Abu-Mazen was sworn in today. Many hope for his success, very few envy him.