After Arafat and Sharon

As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reached new levels of barbarism this past week, nobody was talking about a peace agreement. The deal that almost came about last January is a distant memory, and so are the Oslo Accords, Sharm-el-Sheikh and the proposed Camp David agreements. Although Israelis and Palestinians need a breakthrough deal more desperately than ever before, the peace process continues to be held captive by Palestinian extremists and a trigger-happy Israeli military. According to many commentators, fault lies with the political elites. The more cynical argue that peace is impossible under the current Israeli and Palestinian leadership, and that the only hope for peace is to wait until Yasser Arafat, 72, dies off and Ariel Sharon, 73, either retires or loses an election. Such pessimism is understandable. Arafat is an ineffective autocrat whose support at home and abroad has reached an all-time low. In fairness to the grizzled Palestinian leader, he has the toughest job in the world: the West expects him to be its policeman in the Occupied Territories, and Palestinian people expect him to free them from decades of colonial oppression. Nevertheless, on both accounts, he has failed miserably, as the West considers him an accomplice to terrorism and many Palestinians consider him a traitor who orders his police officers to shoot on Palestinian demonstrators. But his unpopularity has not prompted him to reconsider his leadership style, and he continues to preside over the Palestinian Authority with an iron fist.

But while Arafat is merely incompetent, Sharon is a warmonger. He has made it clear that he will only make peace on his own terms, and that his own terms do not include compromise. Despite his reluctant avowal that a Palestinian state might be acceptable, he has single-handedly undone the work of the late Yitzhak Rabin. Even if Sharon wanted to negotiate, few Palestinians would take him seriously. After all, it was Sharon who ignited the present conflict in Sept. 2000 when he visited a Muslim holy site with 1,000 armed soldiers. But hatred toward Sharon stems primarily from his role in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacres, which left 2,000 women and children dead. While most Western newspapers suffer from a convenient amnesia when it comes to Sharon’s brutal past, Palestinians will not easily forget.

Surely the peace process would fare better with different leaders at the helm. And such leaders do exist on both sides of the Green Line. On the Israeli side, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, a fixture in Israel’s Labor Party, enjoys respect among Israeli and Palestinian elites. He has impressed Western leaders with his willingness to press for diplomatic solutions even as the Israeli leadership is bent on revenge, and he has maintained a safe distance from Sharon’s right-wing leadership despite serving in the coalition government. The Middle East peace process would also probably do better under former foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, widely perceived as the front-runner for the Labor Party leadership. Ben-Ami enjoys the advantages of a Moroccan birth and an Oxford education and is seen as a more intelligent version of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He is by no means progressive, nor even as conciliatory as Peres, but he does believe in compromise and in the necessity of an agreement.

On the Palestinian side, there are no clear-cut successors to Arafat, but there are a number of capable ones. Abu Mazen, the chief Palestinian negotiator of the Oslo accords, is a sure-footed leader who has experience working with Israeli leaders. Another emerging candidate is Sari Nusseibeh, president of al-Quds University, whom Arafat has nominated to direct Jerusalem affairs. While he lacks a political base, Nusseibeh is a darling of the West, where he is regarded as a voice of reason within the Palestinian Authority.

Although tempting to dream of a better Middle East with Arafat and Sharon out of the picture, the sad reality is that it could also get worse—a lot worse. Although capable leaders abound on both sides, it is unlikely that these leaders will come to power anytime soon. Israel’s hopes lie in the Labor Party, which is currently in disarray and unlikely to win the next election. A more likely successor to Sharon is former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is making a political comeback with the support of Israel’s fanatical settler movement. It is hard to believe that Sharon could be more moderate than anyone, but Netanyahu has forged new ground on the Israeli right. If Netanyahu comes to power—especially if he comes to power on the backs of the most right-wing elements in Israeli society—the peace process will be jettisoned back to 1967.

Life after Arafat will be just as bleak. Because of Arafat’s authoritarian style of governance, no Palestinian leader has had a chance to shore up much support within the Palesinian Authority and few are well known outside of Palestinian Authority (PA) circles. As a result, Arafat’s death/assassination will likely create a power vacuum in the Occupied Territories. Moderate leaders will rush to fill it, but so too will Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Moreover, the fragile coalition of Palestinian groups that make up the PA will likely dissolve, as key figures vie for power. Some splinter groups from the old Palestinian Liberation Organization might even make unholy alliances with Hamas for the sake of political gain.

The uncertainty of life after Sharon and Arafat means that Israelis and Palestinians do not have the luxury of waiting for brighter days. A deal must be struck before the most radical elements of both societies get a chance to further derail the peace process. The lame-duck autocrat and the war criminal have no choice but to work together. They must somehow muster the strength to come to the negotiating table and they must do it now. In the Middle East, tomorrow isn’t promised to anyone.

Nader R. Hasan ’02 is a government concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.