CHALLENGES 2004-2005: Old Conflicts Prepare for New Year

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Ferry Biedermann

JERUSALEM, Dec 28 2004 (IPS) - Yasser Arafat’s death has liberated the Palestinians somewhat but not totally. Old habits and military occupation die hard. Too little has changed on the ground to speak about a possible breakthrough in the conflict and to hold out very much hope for the near future. Developments elsewhere, notably in Iraq, may be less predictable.

We know the two items likely to dominate the Israeli-Palestinian agenda in 2005. First, the election for a new Palestinian leadership. The victory of Mahmoud Abbas in the race for chairmanship of the Palestinian Authority seems a foregone conclusion. There will also be elections for the Legislative Council and inside the Fatah movement. That will take up the first half of the year.

The next item on the agenda is the Israeli ‘disengagement’ from the Gaza Strip and a small part of the West Bank. That will take up the rest of the year.

It is not very realistic to expect much more than that. Both parties will be fully occupied with these developments. Internal political pressures will mean that neither is likely to move beyond this agenda in the short term although there are two elements that may make a difference: an unexpected positive dynamic brought about by these moves, or a very different and much more active international involvement, or a combination of the two.

The Middle East is not just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although sometimes it would seem so. Syria is facing intense pressure on the diplomatic front while its economy is rapidly deteriorating. Peace talks with Israel would suit the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, but both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. President George W. Bush have made clear that Damascus will have to wait its turn until after the Palestinians. Lebanon is of course totally dependent of the Syrian line.

Egypt on the other hand is getting actively involved in Israeli-Palestinian affairs. The government of President Hosni Mubarak has taken steps to improve its relations with Israel, that had been strained since the outbreak of the Intifadah, the Palestinian armed struggle, in 2000. This may have something to do with the demise of Yasser Arafat. Dennis Ross, the Clinton Administration’s Middle East mediator said recently at a lecture in Jerusalem that Mubarak had already decided in the mid-1990s that he could not do business with Arafat.

But the re-election of Bush may also have played a role. Egypt seems to have chosen to be more firmly aligned over the next four years with the Israeli-American camp. This may have something to do with Mubarak’s plan to run for an unprecedented fifth term in 2005. He will need all the backing he can get, also internationally, to pull that off at a time when democratisation is supposedly high on the Bush administration’s agenda. Being seen as crucial to the Israeli-Palestinian talks will make him ‘irreplaceable’.

Jordan is the country that has least options and is most dependent on others in the Middle East. It may be happy to see the status quo in Israel and the Palestinian territories continue in 2005, albeit with a further reduction in violence. Instability on the West Bank of the Jordan River gives the authorities on the East Bank on the Jordanian side the jitters.

But the young King Abdullah of Jordan is not ready yet for the other extreme: a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians that will make it clear that the Palestinian refugees who form the majority in his kingdom are there to stay. On the other side in his kingdom, Abdullah is keeping a wary eye on developments in Iraq. An improvement there may herald more trade; deterioration would mean even more of a security threat emanating from there and from al-Qaeda type fundamentalist organisations that see Jordan as a bulwark of the West.

With the agenda for the Israeli-Palestinian disputes more or less locked in for the next year, Iraq will be the place to watch in the Middle East. The main events are scheduled to take place near the beginning of the year and at the end of it. In January the country is set to elect for the first time a national assembly that will appoint a new government and draw a new constitution. At the end of the year will come the presidential election.

That at least is the programme, but rampant violence and an effective Sunni electoral boycott could mean that the election results will be seen as less than legitimate by many in Iraq and outside. Under the circumstances there seems very little chance that elections will spell an end to the violence, and that the Iraqi government itself can take responsibility for security, and that foreign troops can leave. The experience with the handover to the interim government halfway through 2004 shows that such moves have very little impact on the situation on the ground.

There is a very good chance that the debate will shift to the domestic political scene in the United States where the administration will have to decide how long it will keep its troops in a situation that shows no sign of improving. Bush’s re-election does not necessarily mean that the United States will not change course on Iraq.

Bush, and especially his British ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair who may be having an election this year, could do with some positive news from Israelis and Palestinians to offset the bad news that is bound to keep coming from Iraq. Blair has made clear he wants to follow through on his promise to make the Palestinian issue his priority. But he failed to get the grand Middle East peace conference in London early in 2005 that he was aiming for. Sharon simply will not play ball.

The optimistic spin that is put on the conflict since the death of Yasser Arafat may well turn out to be largely unjustified. Militant Palestinian factions headed by Hamas have made clear they are still not interested in a ceasefire. Abbas’s victory in the upcoming elections may be assured but the turnout and the margin will matter. The strong showing by Hamas in the recent municipal elections could be a taste of things to come, but not necessarily.

When he was prime minister in 2003, Abbas did not manage to control the militants, and he did not make a strong impression. Of course, at the time Arafat did not help. If he wins less than convincingly, Abbas may not be much stronger as chairman of the Palestinian Authority than he was as prime minister.

In order to establish his credentials, he has started his campaign with a more radical line than he was known for until now. He is trying to convince the Palestinians that he wants to follow in the footsteps of Arafat, to the annoyance of the Israelis.

Israel has not played a very positive role yet either. Even though it says it will withdraw from around the Palestinian cities before election day, a real withdrawal is not on the cards yet. Also, the construction of settlements and the separation barrier on the West Bank is still continuing, as are Israeli military actions inside Palestinian territory.

If the two sides stick to their current programme for 2005, they will actually be doing well.