What if the PA splits?

Editorial

The past two weeks have been strangely ambiguous ones in the Middle East. We watched with hopefulness the first top-level meeting in almost three years between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, even as we witnessed a grisly rise in terrorist attacks on Israelis and a clampdown by the Israel Defence Forces on West Bank communities where the terrorists are assumed to have originated.

It was, again, the one-step-forward-two-steps-back process that seems to define Mideast events these days. Yet despite the gloomy atmosphere, there may be some mildly silver linings of hope.

The clear division between Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat and the new Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, hold the potential for both disaster and success. At its worst, the split portends something that has always remained a distinct possibility within the Palestinian Authority: civil war. On the other hand, the split could represent a final conflict between those who view the path to the fulfilment of Palestinian aspirations through violence and those who have concluded that talking is the only route to a long-term solution.

The resumption of terror at the very moment that the two sides are sitting down to talk suggests that there remains a vibrant and murderous segment of the Palestinian body politic that opposes even talking; that the old vision of a Palestinian state being born in the heroic blood of revolutionary nation-birth remains the abiding dream for at least some Palestinians. This vision does not reflect a two-state solution. It is an explicit revival of the traditional Palestinian (and larger Arab) aspiration to see Israel driven into the Mediterranean.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is absolutely correct to draw the line on peaceful negotiations until the Palestinian terror ceases – indeed, he is obligated to do so by the spirit and letter of U.S. President George W. Bush's proposed "road map to peace." That is international diplomacy.

But those of us who are not guided by the limitations of diplomacy should be able to take a more nuanced view of recent events.

We should resist the temptation to see the resumption of violence as an indication that the peace-resistant old guard remains dominant. By seeing the Palestinians as monolithic, we paint ourselves into a corner. While it is true that negotiations should be called off when terror strikes, it is not necessarily true that such attacks are indicative of a broader opposition to mutual acceptance and existence. The terrorists, in short, could be making a last-gasp effort as talking becomes seen as the last hope for peace.

If this is true, we can begin to recognize that the people who negotiate with Israel and those who inflict terrorist attacks on Israel are working toward fundamentally different goals. The negotiators seek mutual existence and peace; the terrorists seek the elimination of Israel.

To ignore the possibility of such a split within the Palestinian structure could mean lost opportunities. If Abbas is ready to negotiate, and Arafat, say, is not, the potential for both disaster and progress could be imminent. The possibility exists that a civil war could pit Abbas against Arafat (or their respective surrogates), in which case Israel would have an obvious Palestinian ally and an obvious Palestinian enemy. The potential for anarchy at Israel's doorstep would be frightening. But it could also present the best opportunity yet to isolate the terrorists, with the support of Palestinian negotiators, even possibly see a joint action by Israel and the Palestinian Authority to forcibly put an end to the violence.

But the stick must be accompanied with a carrot. And while the traditional strategy of Israel has been to ensure that violence is never seen as being rewarded, there is also a need to demonstrate that peace and negotiations will provide genuine results in the interest of moderate Palestinians. A split in the Palestinian leadership could result, finally, in the isolation of terrorists and the advent of a Palestinian leadership not beholden to the violent old ways.

^TOP