The May Fourth Dilemma

WHILE Israeli eyes and ears remain riveted to the composition of the three main parties for the coming elections, Yasser Arafat circles the globe, as is his wont, seeking a formula for the fourth of May. This date marks the end of the negotiating period which was designated in the Oslo accords. Had Israel kept to the schedule, there would be, by that time, agreement on a permanent solution.

Arafat threatens to declare, on that day, the Palestinian state. The international community is against such a move. France and Germany and even Egypt have said so openly. The US urges self-restraint, tempting the Palestinian leader with various proposals, all formal in nature. For example, much to Israel's chagrin, President Clinton invited Arafat to a prestigious breakfast with Congress. Washington says, furthermore, that it is ready to tighten its ties with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and to establish a permanent annual meeting in order to coordinate positions. In the short-term, the international opposition to the declaration of a Palestinian state on the fourth of May stems from concern that the move might hurt the electoral chances of Israel's Labor Party. The US, in particular, wants Benjamin Netanyahu removed from office. It sees him as a cause of instability in the region. Yet America is bound to Israel by political, military, and strategic agreements – it must support the Zionist state no matter who is in power. During the years of Netanyahu's rule, Washington has had to grit its teeth and back him up in the face of the Palestinians.

Behind the scenes, however, there is little doubt that the US did all it could to bring about Bibi's downfall. The "13% solution", put forth by America, was intended to accomplish this. The US persuaded Arafat to accept so miserly a withdrawal on the basis of the following logic: If Netanyahu does not accept the proposal, his government will collapse on its left – that is, through its moderate members, like Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai (persona grata in America). On the other hand, if Bibi accepts the proposal (as he did, in fact, at Wye River), the government will fall on its right. The second scenario came to pass.

Yet Washington's dissatisfaction with Netanyahu does not signify that the US has suddenly become the true friend of the Palestinians. Until now America has issued no public statement supporting, in principle, the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state unburdened by Israeli settlements – the sine qua non of a lasting peace. This point brings us to what hinders Arafat from going ahead with his threat on the fourth of May. As we wrote several issues ago ("The Man with the State in his Mouth", Challenge # 50), a declaration of statehood remains empty as long as it is not backed by sufficient power to cut the umbilical tie to Israel and exert real sovereignty over earth, water, and air. Yet Arafat finds himself in a very difficult position. On the fourth of May, when the Oslo framework ends, he will be left holding very little. The controversial date does indeed end his commitments, enabling him to declare a state without violating the agreement, but it also frees Israel from its obligations. According to Yoel Zinger, Israel's legal advisor during the Oslo talks, after May 4 Israel will have the right to reoccupy the territories from which it withdrew as a result of the accords.

Arafat, then, may find himself stripped of glory on the fourth of May. After all the celebrations and prizes, he will be seen to have gained practically nothing. His dilemma is no easy one. The declaration of a state at this point will transform what he has received till now – and that is very little – into the final arrangement. He would prefer to get the remainder of the 42% of the West Bank that was promised at Wye. On the other hand, if he agrees to postpone the date for ending negotiations, he will have to re-enter the talks minus a deadline. All the cards may be reshuffled, and no one can guarantee that in the end he will be able to declare a state. That is why Arafat is flaunting the threat of May fourth: he wants to get a promise from the Americans and Europeans, that if he agrees to postpone the declaration, they will agree to the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. No one has gone public, to date, with such a commitment.

The threat of the declaration is the sole hinge on which the PA's policy turns today. Meanwhile, issues of a different sort altogether preoccupy the Palestinian people. Underpaid professionals in the huge public sector are holding strikes and sanctions to show their discontent with the PA's corrupt and bloated administration. Among the protesters are teachers, doctors, nurses and engineers – people with a good deal of influence on the public mood. In addition, the problem of the political prisoners – those held by Israel and those held by the PA – continues to be an open wound in the society. In the PA prisons at Jericho and Nablus, dozens of inmates, mostly from the Islamic opposition, have been on a hunger strike for nearly five weeks. The PA holds about two hundred political prisoners, almost all without charges or trial. Its Supreme Court continues to order their release, and the PA apparatus continues to keep them locked up. The gap between the PA and the people grows. One day, perhaps, the Palestinian state will receive an official stamp of existence, but judging from what we have seen so far, it is likely to remain a Mafia-style organization in the service of the CIA. Not for this did the Palestinian people make its intifada.