Palestinians need assertive leadership

The abscence of a cohesive and credible Palestinian leadership, while used in the past by Israel to justify refusal to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians, can no longer be brushed aside as a specious argument

An assertive and cohesive Palestinian leadership is urgently needed. The shifting dynamics in the region, with profound implications for the regional balance of power, the strategic interest of the United States and the very future of the moribund peace process, require a visionary and daring Palestinian leadership something currently absent from the equation of power.

Consider the changing dynamics in the region. First, there is the deal the Israelis reportedly made with Hamas for an exchange of prisoners. This will surely enhance the prestige of Hamas and strengthen its standing with the Palestinians, at the expense of the Palestinian National Authority. It also validates Hamas' claim that only resistance to the occupation can force Israel to negotiate a settlement.

It also exposes flawed Israeli logic. As Israeli writer Gideon Levy perceptively put it: "Why is it permissible to talk to Hamas about the fate of one captive soldier … but forbidden to talk to them about the fate of two nations?"

Nonetheless, the absence of a cohesive and credible Palestinian leadership, while used in the past by Israel to justify refusal to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians, can no longer be brushed aside as a specious argument.

The Palestinian leadership must develop and act on a realistic assessment of how developments in the region and shifting balance of power have forced the American president to rearrange his foreign policy priorities. And the Palestine conflict, notwithstanding Obama's goodwill, is not at the top of the list.

In a recent low-key visit to Washington, Benjamin Netanyahu urged Jewish American leaders to keep up the pressure on the Obama administration to adopt a more aggressive position regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Israel lobby and Congress are sparing no efforts to achieve that goal. US President Barack Obama had indicated, following an earlier visit by Netanyahu, that he was committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the Iranian challenge, but that by the end of the year he would reassess the effectiveness of that policy which presumably may be taking place now.

Making Iran a priority of his administration may have been necessary to allay Israeli fears and to get Netanyahu to agree to a freeze on colony construction which, according to the Israeli press, Netanyahu is getting ready to announce.

The American president is facing more daunting challenges. The deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan has forced him to increase American troop levels by some 30,000.

Close behind, if not equally publicly recognised as such, is the deteriorating situation in Pakistan. Noted American journalist Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker that American officials even suggested to Pakistani counterparts the possibility of transferring Pakistani nuclear switches outside the country to guard against the threat of separatists gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. An extremist, nuclear-armed Pakistan is a nightmare scenario Obama cannot ignore.

Obama displayed flexibility in the face of Netanyahu's stubbornness on the issue of colony construction. The administration has gone from "demanding" a complete stop to "all settlement [colony] construction" to praising Netanyahu for his "unprecedented restraint" before backtracking and confirming in principle what the American preference is. The White House position now is that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations should start "without preconditions".

But this apparent concession to the Israelis was coupled with a forceful rejection of the legitimacy of Israeli colonies.

In the face of this dynamic and rapidly changing balance of power, what is the position of the Palestinian leadership? It can be summed up in two words: more waiting. But waiting is not a strategy; it is a choice.

The injustice suffered by the Palestinians is undeniable. But the ability of their leadership to salvage what is left of their shattered society has been hampered by ineptitude and the substitution of a flawed choice for a strategy. A Palestinian leadership that is bold and visionary must emerge from the wreckage of old thinking. It must engage the enemy, exploit his weaknesses, cultivate friends, understand supporters and reflect a realistic and proactive understanding of the dynamics of power.

In particular, it must capitalise on Obama's goodwill before it is submerged by other priorities. Obama has gone further than many presidents before him in committing his administration to a peaceful settlement of the Palestine conflict. In declaring that peace in the Middle East is a strategic interest of the United States he has made the US a full fledged stake holder.

Because of the gross inequalities of the parties, only the sustained involvement of Washington can ensure that the final outcome of the negotiations reflect a measure of justice for the Palestinians and a viable state of their own.

Adel Safty is Distinguished Professor Adjunct at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Russia. His new book, Might Over Right, is endorsed by Noam Chomsky.

Source:gulfnews.com/