Two months after their long-time leader Yasser Arafat passed
away, the Palestinians held elections to pick his replacement on
Sunday.
Palestinians and Israelis have mixed views on how far the
election and transfer of leadership will affect the situation in
Israel, and half a world away, students and faculty at UCLA also
have strong and divergent opinions on the issue.
Mahmoud Abbas, who won the election by a landslide, will pick up
the job of solving the disputes in Israel, which are now more than
half a century old.
The task will be monumental, to say the least.
“There is a difficult mission ahead to build our state, to
achieve security for our people, … to reach our goal of an
independent state,” Abbas said after declaring his
victory.
President Bush has declared his willingness to work with Abbas
and has invited him to the White House, an offer he never extended
to Arafat.
Bush expressed optimism that, as the new leader, Abbas will
provide an opportunity for peace in Israel that has not been seen
in many years.
Along with Bush, many in the United States and here at UCLA see
this as a hopeful moment for Israelis and Palestinians.
“I’m definitely very glad that there’s some
new leadership involved,” said Arash Nafisi, vice president
of Bruins for Israel.
Abbas may be a leader who will bring a more compromising,
progressive stance toward politics than his predecessor and open
the door for successful negotiations between the Israelis and
Palestinians.
“There’s a chance, finally, that the Palestinians
will have a leader who can bring them into the modern world,”
said Scott Bartchy, a professor of history at UCLA. “This is
the best chance we’ve had yet.”
Others, though, are not so optimistic about the effect the new
leader will have on the situation in Israel because the Palestinian
leadership is not the crux of the problem. Rather, many point to
the Israeli presence in disputed territories as the center of the
problem.
Even if Abbas may potentially be the leader who can find a
solution to the decades-old problems, there is concern among
Palestinian supporters and advocates that Israeli and U.S. agendas
will inhibit his ability to represent his people adequately.
Some predict that both the United States and Israel will be
unwilling to work with any leader who does not acquiesce to many,
if not all, of the demands they present.
History Professor Gabriel Piterberg said Arafat encountered a
similar problem and was delegitimized by the United States and
Israeli governments and consequently rendered ineffective.
For this reason, the results of the recent elections may have
little effect on the overall situation in Israel.
“The limitations imposed by Israel and the U.S. on any
Palestinian leader … mean that I don’t know that this will
make much of a difference,” Piterberg said.
The exchange of leadership is seen by some to be such an
important moment in Israeli-Palestinian relations because many
thought Arafat was the primary barrier on the road to peace.
“Arafat was not good for anybody and was, if anything,
oppressing the Palestinians,” Nafisi said.
Bartchy pointed to Arafat’s inability ““ or
unwillingness ““ to stop terrorism as one of his major
failings and an area where Abbas has the potential to make a
positive difference.
“I don’t think Arafat really had the power to get it
done ““ or I don’t think he wanted to,” Bartchy
said.
But others have a much different view of Arafat as both a man
and a leader.
Piterberg referred to Arafat as a “founding father”
figure and “the person who brought back the Palestinian
cause” ““ certainly not the man who was responsible for
the violence in Israel.
And others say it is not the Palestinian but the Israeli
government that needs to change, as Ariel Sharon’s refusal to
withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza has done the most to obstruct
progress towards peace.
“Too much emphasis has been put on this election,”
said Jiries Mogannam of al-Adwa.
Rather than focusing on the Palestinian leadership, Mogannam
said more emphasis should be put on the decisions and position of
the Israeli government, namely their presence in the West Bank and
Gaza.
“The problem isn’t who the leader on the Palestinian
side is; the problem is the occupation,” he added.
And as far as Mogannam is concerned, “The turning point
will be when the occupation ends.”
But even though the new leadership will not be an easy,
miraculous cure to the complex problems facing both Israelis and
Palestinians, many on both sides hope it may be a chance for a new
start and a more trusting relationship between the two
countries.
“I think they have the potential to be a good step in the
right direction, but its not just a one-sided thing,”
Mogannam said.