MIDDLE EAST: Informed Palestinians fear their leaders will fail them yet again, writes Michael Jansen in Ramallah
Yasser Arafat returned here from exile in 1994 to a hero's welcome.
He was Mr Palestine, the man who put Palestine back on the map of the world by waging both armed struggle and peace. The majority believed he would bring independence, democracy and prosperity. Palestinians expected the peace process to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinian National Authority to practise good governance, and economic benefits to flow into their homeland.
Ten years later Mr Arafat, elected president in 1996 by 80 per cent of Palestinian voters, is still regarded as the father of the nation, even though the state did not emerge. Palestinians do not blame Mr Arafat for failing to found a state. He had to contend with Israel's vastly superior military, political and economic might, and the international community's refusal to exert pressure on Israel to honour its commitments under the Oslo accord signed in September 1993.
But most Palestinians demand he give up his patriarchal ways of ruling and embrace democracy. Mr Arafat hangs on to the powers of purse and appointment, vetoes legislation, and controls the dozen-plus security agencies. Nothing can be done without his approval and there is no sign he is prepared to yield his authority.
He would have been in a much stronger position to reach Palestinian goals if he had given the Palestinians the government they wanted and expected.
Instead, Mr Arafat imported corrupt hangers-on, whose loyalty was bought with material favours. "Outsiders" took the plum jobs, established monopolies in fuel, cement and other basic items, secured franchises for imported goods, and indulged in nepotism, alienating "insiders" who stayed on throughout the occupation and young people. Mr Arafat operated Palestine Authority bank accounts without oversight. He created multiple security agencies and played them off against each other.
He never imposed the rule of law or permitted an independent judiciary to emerge.
Palestinian deputies and ministers protested, repeatedly called for reform, and even resigned. But Mr Arafat would not abandon the authoritarian style of leadership he had practised since he established his Fatah movement in 1958. Whenever there was dissent, he would muddle through by mollifying critics and forging compromises between competing factions.
Today, he has no control over the cities of Nablus and Jenin in the West Bank, and is facing a rebellion within Fatah in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. East Jerusalem remains firmly in the grip of Israel, which prevents West Bankers and Gazans from visiting the city Palestinians would make their capital.
The former security chief in the strip, Mr Muhammad Dahlan, and the former prime minister, Mr Mahmoud Abbas, are exploiting this skirmishing with the aim of returning to power.
The Palestine National Authority is broke and has lost all credibility with the populace. Although the cabinet presided over by Mr Ahmad Qurei has resigned, Palestinian deputies believe a new or reshuffled government will be even weaker than the outgoing one.
Prosperity also eluded the Palestinians. Dr Samir Abdullah, director of the Palestine Economic Policy and Research Institute, a private think-tank in Ramallah, told The Irish Times that massive investment flowed into the Palestinian territories between 1994 and 2000. "There was a construction boom and unprecedented business expansion. Arafat's \ impact on the economy was positive, but his entourage was unqualified to deliver public services or to manage a modern economy. The Israelis used administrative and other tools to obstruct economic development."
He continued: "Today we have 40 per cent unemployment, two-thirds are below the poverty level, one-third cannot live without external aid. Investors are no longer putting money into projects; the economy is being de-developed. The wall the Israelis are building deprives the Palestinians of their resources and contains them. There are no jobs, no prospects for personal prosperity, no quality services. Palestinians live in a permanent state of struggle. The Israelis expect them to emigrate. The young are going."
If Mr Arafat had established the sort of government Palestinians demanded, they would have been in a much stronger position to prosecute the second rising against the Israeli occupation, which began in September 2000. Mr Arafat would have been able to exercise control over the militants and create a unified strategy for the resistance.
Israel would have found it more difficult to reoccupy Palestinian cities and to imprison the president in his blasted and burnt compound. Israel would never have been able to sideline Mr Arafat on the international scene. The Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Ariel Sharon, would not be able to say: "I have no Palestinian partner" with whom to negotiate.
Preoccupied with domestic squabbles in Gaza, the leadership is not concentrating on how to exploit the historic decision taken recently by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The court ruled that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal, Israeli settlements are illegal, and the wall Israel is building in the West Bank is illegal. The court said that sections of the wall located on Palestinian land should be torn down and Palestinians compensated for their losses. This judgment could be a turning point for the Palestinians in their struggle for justice, but informed Palestinians fear their leaders will fail them yet again.