The election of Abu Mazen and the test of pragmatism

by Global Ministries | published on Oct 10, 2014

One could put all the expectations and wishes in Abu Mazen after his election as President of the Palestinian Authority; from reigning in the militant Palestinian groups to making peace with Israel. But one thing appears to be clear: his election signals the end of the Intifada as we have known it in the Palestinian Occupied Territories for over four years now. Of those who have given their votes to Abu Mazen, many did so out of a conviction borne out by the tribulations and trials of daily life under Israeli military occupation. These Palestinians want change and change means finding channels to confront Israeli occupation other than localized and sometimes haphazard use of arms by militant Palestinians. Many of the Abu Mazen voters are not naïve to think that miracles can happen in negotiations with an Israel so self-centered, overly preoccupied with its security and insistent on continued occupation of Palestinian lands. But they, nevertheless, think that Abu Mazen is a pragmatic politician without the overdose of charisma that often comes with its slogans and mottos but lacks the practical methods of achieving specified goals. It is this pragmatism that has attracted many of the voters to Abu Mazen and, contrary to what some may argue, the elections were not prepackaged to bring in Mr. Abbas.

Abu Mazen and the Palestinians face difficult challenges; highest among them is the institutionalization of the state so as all Palestinians would be treated according to the Law and not according to factional or local preferences. Some may argue that this a catchword for collecting arms from militant groups and hence limiting the possibilities of resistance to continued Israeli occupation. Not necessarily so because, as witnessed in the Second Intifada, continued occupation and failure of the political process create their own antithesis, even among groups affiliated with the National Authority or its prominent political factions. Abu Mazen is at least aware of the need to achieve a dignified life for Palestinians, as he put it in his victory speech. Now the challenge is how to create the institutions or to rejuvenate them, if they are already there, to serve the purpose of bringing dignity to Palestinian life. Certainly an economic package that would steer the devastated Palestinian economy back to health and eventual stabilization would demand the full attention of Abu Mazen and his team. This is likely to take a number of years, according to economic experts but without it there could be no dignity for a majority of Palestinians who are at present living below the poverty line. Some, again, may argue that improvement of economic conditions would weaken resistance to continued occupation. According to this argument, then, continued resistance could come only with continued poverty. But the example of the Second Intifada once again proves this argument invalid as it took place when the Palestinian economy was enjoying a reasonable percentage of growth and the creation of new jobs was well over the 50,000 mark in 1999.

The greatest and most formidable challenge to Abu Mazen, however, remains that of initiating and concluding successful negotiations with Israel. Being accepted by all important parties; the Palestinians, Israel and the United States, is a definite plus that would give Abu Mazen the leverage needed to initiate and conduct negotiations. It remains to be seen whether this confluence of Palestinian, Israeli and American opinion in the man would be translated into an eventual genuine peace agreement. Abu Mazen is not a miracle man but he carries, at this historical juncture, the possibilities of making peace and bringing dignity to his people. The Palestinian people have already given their vote of confidence to Abu Mazen. The Palestinian factions, irrespective of whether they participated in the elections or not, could make a gesture of a period of grace in order to enable Abu Mazen to start his tenure without being sidetracked. This is the least they could do to show respect to the will of their compatriots who voted him into office.

But in the final analysis, the success of negotiating peace with Israel does not depend on the Palestinians alone. Israel has the responsibility to come to terms with the necessity to end its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem in order to make for lasting peace with the Palestinians. In addition, the historic injustice that has befallen the Palestinians as a result of the establishment of Israel in 1948 and as manifested by the continuing refugee problem should be redressed in a manner acceptable to the refugees themselves. While some may hasten to point out that these are maximalist Palestinian positions, the truth of the matter is that negotiations are meant to address the points of dissension and not simply the points of agreement or convergence.

Pragmatism appears to be the order of the day on the Palestinian side; would it be the order of the day on the Israeli side as well? The answer does not rest solely in Tel Aviv as Washington has much to contribute towards creating the needed pragmatic sense and direction on the Israeli side. Washington has been continuously perceived by Palestinians and others as having persistently sided all along with Israel. An era of pragmatism demands that Washington adopts a balanced position and that it activates the role of the honest broker. Without the serious and committed involvement of the US as an honest broker, the pragmatism shown by the Palestinians may as well lead them once more to a new and vicious cycle of violence and confrontation.

Dr. Bernard Sabella
Executive Director
Department of Service to Palestinian Refugees
Middle East Council of Churches
Jerusalem

Associate Professor of Sociology
Department of Social Sciences
Bethlehem University
Bethlehem
Palestinian Territories