|
The yard of the Ramallah presidential palace has seen two crops of olives since Yasser Arafat passed away one year ago, but the tragic and stirring scenes of his burial there are still fresh in people's minds.
Arafat left his beloved homeland and countrymen in a wretched atmosphere, leaving his successors and foes to cope with longstanding regional conflicts.
However, a dazzling peace process in the Middle East free of Arafat has not concealed its more complicated and elusive nature.
Mahmoud Abbas, who succeeded Arafat, has always held high the banner of his predecessor.
Abbas was in serious disagreement with Arafat on a series of political issues during the great leader's remaining years. Because of this, he once left the Palestinian political arena.
However, his regaining of political power as Yasser Arafat's successor has won himself support from a majority of Palestinians. He did not meet any major obstacles to his naming as Chairman of the Palestinian National Authority.
Facts over the past year show that Abbas has always been firm in consolidating his own political status by taking advantage of Arafat's political influence.
To satisfy the soaring calls for reforms from reformists, the new leader began to promote a series of "New Policies" shortly after he assumed the leadership.
Domestically, he succeeded in persuading 13 political factions to accept a year-long ceasefire accord and reformed Palestinian security departments.
Diplomatically, he successfully realized a handshake with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and has made two trips to the United States for meetings with US President George W. Bush.
However, good times did not last long. Soon after the detente occurred in the deadlocked peace process, ambitious Abbas met a "cold current" in his political career.
After Israeli troops' unilateral pullout from the Gaza Strip, radical Hamas demonstrated ever-stronger signs of breaking away from its coalition with Abbas' government, and has since organized several serious armed campaigns. This was beyond imagination during Arafat's time, just as some local journalists noted.
As a result, the temporary armistice agreement was soon broken off and Palestinians and Israelis were once again plunged into the vicious "circle of violence." Conflicts between them quickly escalated.
With this as an excuse, Israel once again played the old tune, demanding Abbas crack down on "terrorists" and postponed twice a summit meeting with the Palestinians.
Also, it discarded an initially supportive and friendly posture towards the new Palestinian Government, leaving dimmer the prospect of resuming talks on Palestine's final status.
With internal and outside troubles, Abbas faces a similar awkward situation as his predecessor Arafat. However, there are essential differences between the two.
Compared with his predecessor, Abbas lacks political influence to bring restive extremist groups under effective control. Also, he holds no strong cards in his hands to use against a much more powerful Israel.
During its long efforts to exclude and isolate Arafat from the Middle East political arena, Israel regarded Abbas as a moderate Palestinian politician. He was thought to be a suitable talks partner in place of Arafat.
However, Israel's later activities demonstrate that Sharon has not carried forward his original attitude.
In 2003, when Arafat appointed Abbas as prime minister of the first ever Palestinian Government under huge outside pressure, Sharon, together with Bush, expressed his staunch support for the moderate politician.
But the new Palestinian premier's hasty end to his "new initiative" was linked with Sharon's negative attitude towards his neighbor's domestic affairs.
Soon after Arafat's death, Israel demonstrated a desire to forge peace and reached a Sham el Sheikh accord with Abbas. The agreement was followed by the country's pullout from some West Bank cities and its release of Palestinian prisoners. However, this positive momentum came to an abrupt stop, shortly after Israel's unilateral withdrawal.
In the rivalry between Palestine and Israel, whose strengths are not at the same level, the latter completely dominates the talks process.
Israel's pullout plan was carried out without any prior communication and talks with the Palestinian side.
After withdrawal of about 8,000 Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip, Israeli troops have frequently bombed the region.
At the same time, the Sharon cabinet has stepped up construction of a "security fence" in the West Bank and plans a geographical re-distribution of Jewish settlers in the area in an attempt to create a de facto situation.
In an Arafat-free Middle East, it seems no one can discern Sharon's underlying intentions. The hawkish Israeli prime minister is now going further and further from his original strategy.
The half-a-century-long Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are by no means a pure struggle between the Arab and Jewish peoples. Without intervention from outside big powers, the Middle East might have been a conflict-free land.
Brokered by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a deal on the Gaza border crossings was reached between Israel and the Palestinians on Tuesday. It is believed to be a rare breakthrough in the Mideast peace process in the past year.
However, more mediating efforts from the US side are needed to make sure that the agreement can be successfully implemented when the border opens later this month.
After Abbas came into power, the United States showed its highest-ever enthusiasm towards the Palestinian Government. President Bush issued to Abbas warm invitations to visit. Bush also sent Rice to visit the Palestinians and offered a package of economic assistance.
The international community, including Israel, has highly praised American mediation.
However, there is a lot more the United States can do to maximize its mediating role in the Mideast.
Just as Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia complained, a series of Palestinian reform measures were affected due to the absence of committed aid from the United States.
(China Daily November 17, 2005)
|
