Palestinians have long argued over whether they should try to strike a political deal with Israel or fight to destroy it. Now Israel’s election of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has renewed hopes that a deal may be possible-and brought the family feud to a boil. “We are in a critical transitional period,” said Ahmad al-Yazji, a Gazan member of the Palestinian negotiating team in the U.S.-brokered Mideast peace talks. “We want an autonomy that gives us everything. [The Israelis] want an agreement that gives us nothing. It will all be decided at the table.” But for the Palestinians, just staying at the table won’t be easy.
Rabin, who says his top priority is to negotiate an interim agreement for limited Palestinian self-rule within nine months, moved last week to jump-start the stalled talks. As U.S. Secretary of State James Baker toured the region, Rabin announced he would cancel all planned construction of Jewish settlements in large parts of the occupied territories, while permitting completion of building already underway. That may be enough of an about-face on settlement policy to persuade the Bush administration to guarantee $10 billion in loans, as Israel requested 11 months ago. It also opened the way for a new round of peace negotiations, possibly as early as Aug. 10. Palestinian delegates had already promised to attend even if Israel didn’t grant their demand for a total settlement freeze; spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi acknowledged Israel’s new “willingness to engage in a meaningful transfer of authority.”
With Rabin on the move, can the Palestinians keep up the pace? After 25 years under occupation, they’re ill equipped for negotiations. Rabin’s ambitious timetable will challenge the Palestinian delegates to reach consensus quickly, whether for an initiative of their own or to respond to an Israeli proposal. But their leaders are scattered from Tunis to Amman. Both inside and outside the occupied territories, the Palestinian community is riven by disputes over whether participating in the talks at all is a good idea. Some Palestinians who support the negotiations fear their side could be left scrambling for backing while Rabin forces through a deal on his own terms. “Rabin wants continuous negotiations,” says Ziad Abu Amr, a political scientist at Bir Zeit University. “This kind of settlement needs time. There are too many gaps that have to be bridged.”
Even before Rabin’s election, the cracks showed. There was tension between members of the Palestinian negotiating team and PLO leaders in Tunis. The Palestinian delegates argued among themselves. And as the talks dragged on inconclusively, Arafat came under increasing fire from PLO rejectionists. Arafat himself only grudgingly agreed to the talks, based on a U.S. plan that he had rejected a decade before. Still opposing the plan are the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine; they object that ground rules for the negotiations provide no U.N. role, no freeze on new settlements and no role for Palestinians from Jerusalem.
But the internal disputes are minor compared with the split between the PLO and the fundamentalists. “These are two groups embracing two diametrically opposed ideologies and political programs,” said Bir Zeit’s Abu Amr. An offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas opposes the very concept of the talks as well as the existence of Israel. It considers all of historic Palestine a sacred Islamic “trust.” And, bolstered by Saudi funds, it has become a fearsome force in the territories. In Gaza its support may be as high as 30 percent. Hamas “united leadership” in the occupied territories have fought for control of the 41/2-year-old intifada, imposing separate strikes and issuing their own leaflets. But the troubles in Gaza this month were unprecedented. The prospect of autonomy had only fueled the competition between the groups. “This is a power struggle,” says peace-talks delegate Ghassan Khatib. “Each side wants to make sure it is the side to take over should the Israelis pull back.”
The violence embarrassed and worried many Palestinians. “The Israelis are laughing in the streets about what is happening,” said Gazan lawyer Muhammad Abu Shaaban. One prayer leader urged good Muslims to “confront the kuffar [unbelievers] and secularists.” But others lamented the bloodshed. “Who benefits when brothers fight?” asked the imam in Gaza City’s Palestine Mosque. It was yet another discouragement for those who believed the intifada would quickly bring independence. “Arafat declared a Palestinian state was just a stone’s throw away,” says Hisham, 38, a builder from the Jalazon refugee camp. “We threw a thousand stones, and no state came. Now we must take what we can.”
Such sheer resignation may stem the current rivalry. “I am against the peace process,” says Ali, 23, a supporter of the PFLP. “But I am so desperate for change that I have to admit that we need the talks.” For the first time, Hamas declared no strike in the territories when Baker visited last week. And despite its fighting rhetoric, Hamas leaders say they will take part in elections if Israel allows them. Still, the recent bloodshed does nothing to inspire confidence in Palestinian self-rule. “There can be truces and cooperation, but the essence of the conflict will remain,” says Abu Amr. “We may witness some very violent times.”
In the short term, rejectionists may try to derail the peace talks through terrorism. But even if the talks stay on track, the Gaza fighting raised the prospect that the peace process could run quickly from one intractable conflict to another. Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas speculates about what might happen if a PLO police force tried to quash Hamas: “People would not just sit on their hands-they would defend themselves.” Israel argues it can’t be expected to grant much power to a neighbor be set by violence. Terrorism discredited its authors; in the same way, unchecked infighting could threaten the Palestinians’ prospects for finally gaining some measure of self-rule.
Rejects talks, believes all of historic Palestine is an Islamic “trust.”
Palestinian leftists say the PLO gave away the store in agreeing to ground rules for talks.
Dominant PLO faction has bowed to pressure for negotiations that could lead to a limited form of self-government.
