December 2004

After Arafat: Prospects for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Brigadier General Michael Herzog
Washington Institute for Near East Policy

As conventional wisdom says, with Arafat's death has come a new opportunity in the Middle East. But this opportunity will come to naught unless it is strategically acted upon. Some, including European leaders, are calling for Israelis and Palestinians to return hastily to the negotiating table. The new Palestinian leadership, however, ought not to be overloaded. The international community should make its focus threefold: first, it should focus on the foundation and reform of Palestinian political institutions; second, on the establishment of a stable, terrorist-free calm in the region; and third, on Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan. There has already been positive movement on these three fronts, including the scheduling of four rounds of Palestinian elections in the near future.

Arafat's successor will inherit a myriad of challenges, perhaps the greatest of which will be controlling the armed Palestinian militias. But there is room for cautious optimism about the post-Arafat era. Abu Mazen, the likely successor, seeks to break away from militarizing the intifada, and it looks like Egypt might be a useful partner in bringing an end to Palestinian chaos and a start to meaningful peace talks. Iran, however, undermines progress through its support of Hezbollah. (Over half of Palestinian terrorism can be traced to Iran). If the West is so intent on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it must address the fact that Iran presents a major barrier to overcome.

Said Arikat
Al Quds

Arafat's leadership was significant. He held the Palestinian people together, garnered enough support among them to openly recognize Israel, and went out of his way to strive for peace. He made a mistake, however, in signing 1993 Oslo Accords, which demanded that the Palestinians commit to preserving Israeli security--despite Israel's militarily strength--and which accepted the principle of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Arafat allowed the creative and manipulative Israeli leadership to doom the two-state solution through land grab. He also lacked credibility in ruling by nepotism and tribalism.

Abu Mazen, Arafat's probable successor, lacks Palestinian appeal, particularly within the refugee camps, which were the backbone of Arafat's popularity. If Abu Mazen is elected, the Bush administration must put pressure on Israel and prevent Mazen from being seen as a stooge. In general, the United States must put an end to coughing up excuses for Israel and its violent occupation.

Abu Mazen will have to be wary of the trap into which Arafat fell, and, unlike his predecessor, insist on the full right of return for the Palestinian people and accept no less than 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He must also insist that the Israeli Army cease demolitions of Palestinian homes. The Road Map is a preferable plan to Oslo because it calls for an end to the Israeli occupation; nevertheless, the future is bleak.

The Palestinians must focus on helping their own communities, quelling the armed factions, and ending suicide bombings.

Robert Satloff
Washington Institute of Near East Policy

The post-Arafat era should be examined as "Bush is in, Arafat is out, so what?" There is a window of opportunity now, given the speed with which the "Arafat moment" has passed. The United States should concern itself with taking advantage of this opportunity. Other countries have already done so: Iran has tried to fill the power vacuum in the Palestinian territory through control of Hezbollah; Syria will likely reach an armistice with the Palestinian Authority; and Egypt has warmed relations with Israel, as evident in its release of Arab Israeli prisoner Azzam Azzam and its agreement to deploy 750 security personnel to the Philadelphi Strait.

More important than the level of U.S. engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian problem is the direction of this engagement. There have been three positive realizations in United States policy over the tenure of the Bush administration: First, the United States has recognized that Israel is facing a terror threat and must respond accordingly. Second, Bush articulated the need for Palestinian statehood. And finally, Bush openly declared Arafat a liar--he lied to the United States about his involvement with the Karine-A weapons shipment.
 
Arafat's disappearance from the stage has lead to two specific and positive developments: the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip and the deepening of democracy in the Palestinian territories through elections. This progress will be undermined if diplomatic negotiations ensue before Israeli disengagement from Gaza and Palestinian reform are seen through. The United States ought to invest in developing the Palestinian Authority. There should be, for example, a special representative responsible for Palestinian reconstruction and development, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees ought to be bought out by the United States.

AEI intern Yonit Golub prepared this summary.