[Marxism] Avnery: Who Envies Abu-Mazen?

[Mike Friedman <mikedf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Who Envies Abu-Mazen?

Hebrew http://www.geocities.com/keller_adam/GushShalom/Avnery_heb.htm  ?????


Uri Avnery,  15.1.05

Now it?s official: ?the First Democracy in the Arab World? or ?the Second 
Democracy in the Middle East? has been born.

The Palestinian elections have impressed the world. Until now, if elections 
were held in any Arab country at all, there was only one candidate, and he 
received 99.62% of the vote. Yet here there were seven candidates, there 
was a lively election campaign and the winning candidate got only 62%.

The truth is, of course, that Palestinian democracy existed already. In 
1996, the Palestinians held elections for the presidency and the 
parliament, monitored by international observers. Yasser Arafat, the leader 
of the Palestinian struggle for liberation, was not the only one standing; 
another candidate, Samikha Khalil, a respected woman, did garner almost 10% 
of the vote. But because of Arafat?s dominant personality, the insufficient 
separation between the branches of government and the relentless Israeli 
defamation campaign against him, many people around the world did not 
recognize the Palestinian democracy.

Now the situation is different. Nobody can deny the near-miracle that has 
happened: the clean transition from the Arafat era to the era of his 
successors, and the fair elections held under strict international 
supervision. And, most importantly, democracy was not imposed from the 
outside, at the whim of a foreign president, but grew from below. And not 
under normal conditions, but under a brutal occupation.

The whole world acknowledges the Palestinian democracy. That, by itself, 
creates a new political situation.


Much now depends on the personality of Abu-Mazen. He is setting out under 
the shadow of his great predecessor. Those who succeed a Founding Father 
always have a problem at the beginning, like the heirs of Bismarck or 
Ben-Gurion.

Just think of the man who succeeded Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, the founder of 
modern Egypt and the idol of the entire Arab world. When Nasser died, I 
asked my friend, Henry Curiel, what kind of person his almost unknown 
successor was.

Curiel, who founded the first (mainly Jewish) Egyptian Communist party, had 
a razor-sharp mind. In Paris he had set up a kind of international center 
of assistance for liberation movements the world over, while maintaining 
close ties to his homeland. His answer was short and sharp: ?Sadat is a 
simpleton.?

He was not alone in this view. Egyptians used to tell a joke about the dark 
spot on Sadat?s brow: ?At every meeting of the Free Officers Committee 
(that was then ruling the country), Nasser would ask his colleagues to 
express their opinion. One after the other they stood up and spoke. At the 
end, Sadat too would get up to speak. Nasser would put his finger on his 
brow and gently push him back into his chair, saying: Oh, sit down, Anwar!?

Yet upon assuming the presidency, Sadat astounded the world. He sent his 
army across the Suez Canal, achieving the first significant military 
victory ever over the Israeli army. His visit to Jerusalem was a brilliant 
act without precedent in history. Never before had a leader visited the 
capital of the enemy while still in a state of war.

Abu-Mazen has lived all his life in the shadow of Arafat. He was not a 
military leader, unlike the adored Abu-Jihad, who was murdered by Israel. 
He was not in command of the security apparatus, unlike Abu-Iyad, who was 
murdered by Abu-Nidal. Since 1974, he was closely associated with Arafat?s 
historic efforts to achieve a political settlement with Israel, and in 
charge of the contacts with the Israeli peace forces. I myself met him for 
the first time in Tunis, in 1983.

I shall not be surprised if Abu Mazen, as the president of the Palestinian 
State-in-the-Making, exhibits talents and attributes that did not find 
their proper expression during the Arafat era. He may yet become the 
Palestinian Sadat.

Of course, Abu-Mazen is very different from Sadat. The Egyptian leader had 
a dramatic flair (like Menachem Begin), he loved big gestures (like 
Arafat). Abu-Mazen?s style is the very opposite.

And another huge difference: Sadat was in absolute control of a big 
country. He could afford to ignore different views. Abu-Mazen does not 
enjoy this luxury.


He brings with him to his job a valuable dowry: his relationship with the 
President of the United States.

George Bush is a simple fellow. He likes some people and hates others, and 
this decides the policy of the greatest power on earth. He likes Ariel 
Sharon and fawns on him. Since he has never been in battle, he admires the 
combat-rich Israeli general. Sharon personifies for him the American myth ? 
the annihilation of the Indians and the conquest of the territories. 
Arafat, on the other hand, reminded him of an Indian chief, whose language 
is unintelligible and whose ploys are satanic.

When Bush saw Abu-Mazen in Aqaba, a respectable person in a business suit, 
without beard or keffiyeh, he liked him on sight. That?s why he 
congratulated him this week and invited him to the White House. The 
question is whether Abu-Mazen can translate this attitude quickly into 
political achievements.

The situation presents Sharon with a difficult dilemma. His natural 
inclination is to do unto Abu-Mazen what he did so successfully to Arafat: 
demonize him and cut his ties with America. Already he is muttering darkly 
about Abu-Mazen?s unwillingness to destroy the ?terrorist organizations?.

But Sharon knows that he must behave with the utmost care, so as not to 
make Bush angry. As long as Bush thinks that Abu-Mazen is O.K., Sharon must 
not be seen to undermine him. This, too, gives Abu-Mazen a chance.


So what can he do?

His first task is to come to terms with the refusal-organizations. No 
leader can conduct national policy with armed factions firing in the 
opposite direction.

Ben-Gurion was in a similar situation before the foundation of Israel, when 
faced with the Irgun and the Stern Group who acted independently. Once he 
tried to integrate them into a unified ?Hebrew Revolt Movement?, at another 
time he handed their fighters over to the British police. But it is 
essential to remember: Ben-Gurion started the decisive confrontation ? by 
shelling the Irgun ship Altalena - only after the State of Israel had 
already come into being. Then the two organizations were incorporated into 
the new Israeli army.

Anyone who says that Abu-Mazen is ready or able to start a civil war 
against Hamas does not know what he is talking about. Palestinian public 
opinion would not stand for it. Most Palestinians believe that without the 
armed struggle, Sharon would not be talking of withdrawing from Gaza. They 
are ready for a cease-fire in order to give Abu-Mazen a chance. But they do 
not want the liquidation of the fighting organizations, because it may be 
necessary to renew the armed struggle if Abu-Mazen can?t convince the 
Americans and the Israelis to enable the Palestinians to realize their 
national aims.

In his dealings with Hamas, Abu-Mazen, like Arafat, will prefer a 
combination of negotiations, political pressure and mobilizing public 
opinion. He will have to convince the armed factions to accept the national 
strategy that is adopted by the leadership. In return, he will have to 
welcome Hamas into the political system, the PLO and the parliament.

The attack at the Karni crossing this week was a demonstration of power by 
the armed factions. It was a classic guerilla action, much as the recent 
destruction of an army post on the ?Philadelphi Axis?. The organizations 
want to prove that they have not been vanquished, but rather that they have 
achieved a draw with the Israeli army. If a cease-fire is arranged, it will 
not be a sign of weakness on their part. In the same way, the Yom Kippur 
attack preceded the Egyptian-Israeli peace, and the Hizbullah guerilla war 
preceded the withdrawal from Lebanon.

If Abu-Mazen achieves such a cease-fire, he will be able to address his 
main task: to win over Israeli and international public opinion and to 
change the policy of the United States.

Sadat succeeded in both. But Sadat was dealing with Menachem Begin, who was 
willing to relinquish Egyptian territory in order to continue his struggle 
against the Palestinians and prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. 
Sharon, too, opposes the creation of a Palestinian state in all of the West 
Bank and the Gaza Strip, with its capital in East Jerusalem. But Abu-Mazen, 
like Arafat, cannot and will not be satisfied with anything less than what 
is now a sanctified aim.

That is another huge difference between Sadat and Abu-Mazen: Sadat came to 
Jerusalem only after he was secretly assured that Begin was ready to give 
back all of Sinai. Sharon, on the other hand, is promising Abu-Mazen 
nothing at all.

Abu-Mazen was sworn in today. Many hope for his success, very few envy him.


Archive of email reports: 
https://mailman.gush-shalom.org/pipermail/gush-shalom-intl/2004/thread.html#start 


If you want to support Gush Shalom's activities you can send a cheque or 
cash, wrapped well in an extra piece of paper to:

Gush Shalom pob 3322 Tel-Aviv 61033 Israel

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism