Briefly summarising the history of Abu Mazen’s four-year mandate, what are, in your opinion, the mistakes that have led to this crisis that the Palestinian government is unable to overcome?
Abu Mazen has been incapable of setting up a national unity government and he also has fallen into the trap set by extremist groups, giving in to the most hard-line security groups. This was his greatest mistake and I mean this from a strictly political point of view. Al Fatah has been experiencing a crisis for at least 20 years and the 2006 elections won by Hamas made this crisis official. Abu Ala first, and then in recent years Abu Mazen, did not solve any of the problems afflicting the Palestinian government. For example they did not free the party and the PNA of corrupt politicians, which are the real thorn in the flesh of Palestinian politics. From a realistic viewpoint, it is now difficult to speak of a Palestinian state. There is no longer any trace of one. Hence I do not forecast a future any better than the recent past.
According to a survey by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), carried out between December 3rd and 5th 2008, interviewing a sample of 1270 adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, almost two thirds of Palestinians believe the Fatah leader’s mandate should end next January, while three out of four say they are in favour of an early general election to be held during the first six months of 2009. What will happen on January 9th? Will Abu Mazen still be the President of the PNA?
That is what they say in Ramallah. Abu Mazen might remain in power for one more year. But these rumours could also be denied tomorrow. There is also another solution on the table, possible according to Palestinian Law, which establishes that the role played by the President of the PNA can be provisionally held by the President of the Legislative Council, Abdel Aziz Dweik, who is however currently in prison in Israel. In this case he would be replaced by his deputy, Ahmed Baher. I believe the first hypothesis to be the most likely. This would mean that for one more year the situation in Palestine would not improve, I refer to the occupied territories, to Hamas and the checkpoints set-up by the Israelis surrounding all Palestinian cities including our Parliament, and finally also the peace agreements with Israel. If things went well, at best everything would remain unchanged compared to the recent past and to today. In a word, stalemate for the Palestinian people.
Peace between Israel and the Palestinian government depends on the USA. Could Barack Obama’s victory change the way the wind is blowing? Is there any chance of re-establishing the conditions that led to the 1993 Oslo Agreements, which were a real boost of optimism for both Palestinians and Israelis?
In 1993 there were different leading players on the international stage. Rabin, Arafat and Clinton were the right men at the right time. Sadly we all know how it ended. Today the context has changed, especially after the events that took place on September 11th 2001. The war in Iraq and the one in the Lebanon in August 2006, all changed the network of international diplomacy. As far as the USA is concerned, Obama will never be able to adopt the same political strategies as George W. Bush because this would be political suicide. The American President-Elect seems more open to dialogue and also seriously intent on improving his country’s image and prestige abroad, in particular in the Middle East. Appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was an excellent choice. Unlike Condoleeza Rice, Hillary knows the region and the reality experienced here extremely well. Everyone hopes that the future of the Middle East will be better than it is now and I am sure that the Obama administration will work to improve the USA’s relationship with Iraq, Afghanistan and us. Because whatever one’s opinion may be, stability in the Middle East depends on peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Translated by Francesca Simmons