The announcement that Mahmoud Abbas has decided not to stand for re-election as head of the Palestinian Authority should come as a relief to all Palestinians. In fact, Abbas's departure will open a much-needed opportunity to take stock of where things stand and assess the future course of the Palestinian struggle.
Never an appealing or charismatic figure, Abbas has been losing popular support since his first day in office five years ago (his term technically expired in January 2009). Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, in which he played a prominent role, the official Palestinian leadership has been pursuing a formula for peace -- the two-state solution -- that has yielded nothing more than the intensification of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. Those 16 years have been characterized by the further immobilization and immiseration of the Palestinian people, and an ever-growing list of civilian casualties, most recently in Gaza.
We are left with no other conclusion than this: that the so-called peace process with which Abbas has been indelibly associated, albeit as the Israelis' junior assistant, was calculated to produce exactly these results. The very first step of the Oslo process, undertaken with Abbas's assent in 1993, was to fragment and separate the occupied territories into shards of land, disconnected from each other and from the outside world, under total, institutionalized Israeli domination. Take one look at a map and you can't miss the separation of Gaza from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the further internal splintering of the West Bank, all of which is the direct result of Oslo.
Today, the Palestinian Authority (PA) over which Abbas presides is seen as a puppet. It has become the manager of the day-to-day burdens of military occupation, responsible for the hassle and expense of administering a restless population. All this is done on behalf of the Israelis, who have meanwhile gone on expropriating Palestinian land, bulldozing Palestinian homes, and building exclusively Jewish settlements in violation of international law (doubling the population of settlers since peace talks began). To all Palestinians other than the tiny clique who benefit from this arrangement, the sight of Abbas's U.S.-trained and Israeli-armed PA militiamen cooperating with Israeli forces -- if not taking direct orders from them -- is nothing short of grotesque. And when Abbas recently succumbed to Israeli and U.S. pressure and dropped his support for the Goldstone report, a U.N. Human Rights Council-mandated investigation into last year's Gaza incursion, many Palestinians saw it as the last straw both for Abbas -- and for the PA itself.
What, then, are the alternatives?
12NEXT Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.
ABBAS MOMANI/AFP/Getty Images
Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and comparative literature at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is the author of, among other books, Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation.
Handicapping the Next Palestinian Leader
All I Want for Xmas Is an Afghan Strategy
Kashmir, the Forgotten Front
Does J Street Lead to Jerusalem or Washington?
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE
TLAW
8:19 PM ET
November 6, 2009
Short version: the problem
Short version: the problem with Israel and the occupied territories is that they're not enough like Lebanon or Bosnia. If you're going to advocate for a one state solution it seems like your task is to explain why it wouldn't devolve into a sectarian disaster; it's not like this is some novel idea that you're the first to suggest. The PLO spent 20 years demanding a unitary, secular, democratic state without success. If seven years of negotiations and 5+ years of terrorism couldn't deliver a satisfactory two-state deal, how is the Palestinian leadership going to achieve a goal that is much more objectionable to Israeli Jews? In practice what you're advocating for is indefinite occupation and editorial-writing, but I guess this isn't a problem since only an insignificant fraction of Palestinians live in occupied territory.
SCOTTGOOSE
10:43 PM ET
November 6, 2009
Non-starter
Sorry pal (no pun intended). Good, surprisingly objective piece except for two paragraphs and they happened to be the most substantive. It is absolutely inconceivable for any Israeli administration to allow demographic factors destroy the Jewish State of Israel. There can always be a peaceful Israeli-Arab population in Israel; they are welcome to say. But a two-state solution is the only solution.
SCOTTGOOSE
10:55 PM ET
November 6, 2009
Excuse me, I didn't finish my though
A two-state solution is necessary as a political solution because of the necessary legitimacy and resources/infrastructure to create a new state. Israel will certainly not abrogate any of the pre-requisites of Israel as a nation: A (1) Jewish (2) Democratic (3) in the land of Israel. That is what was envisioned and its the reality that no sane Israeli leader would back-peddle from in final-status negotiations, which MUST occur for the status quo to be altered. Otherwise, its just a bunch of non-binding resolutions telling a country who has tried to make unilateral compromises (2005 Gaza Withdrawal, 2000 Lebanon) to only see a manifestation of evil, rather than a cessation of violence. That Israel withdrew in 2005 as an act of good faith, receiving nothing in return and that it only facilitated Hamas's consolidation of power is objectively beyond reproach. In sum, a one state solution isn't palatable to either side and your being silly if you say otherwise, Professor. So lets just hope something can good can come from the resignation from Abbas. I'm pullin for Salam Fayyad. Barghouti would be the best of a few evils. .
MOSTREAD
MOSTCOMMENTED
MOSTREAD
Read Full Article »