So suddenly it's all rosy on the Palestinian track. Well, not quite, writes Azmi Bishara One of the peculiarities of politics and of politicians, of political commentators specialised or otherwise, and of other persons of sway and influence is the business of creating popular moods, shaping public opinion and disseminating climates of optimism or pessimism. They manufacture the flavour of the month and then invite people to confirm this choice through a democratic electoral process. The climate being manufactured today is that things will get better now that Arafat is dead because now there is a chance to revive the peace process and the "street" is upbeat. Some who shed tears over the death of Arafat will not openly acknowledge the cause of all this optimism. Yet, the death of Arafat is the only observable change that has occurred and this event is somehow solely responsible for the shift from stagnation and despair to a new breath of life and hope. How odd. Is it really possible that a single person confined to a few crumbling rooms in Ramallah was responsible for bringing everything to a standstill? Of course we could look at the situation another way and say that the Palestinians are getting a new leadership. But then, if that new leadership held the same positions for which Arafat was placed under siege, we would not have had this sudden change in mood manufactured. Arafat was not confined to his Ramallah compound because of the way he looked or dressed -- his appearance did not keep him from being nominated for and winning the Nobel Prize -- but because of the views that were attributed to him, regardless of whether or not we agree with the attribution. Evidently, the propagators of the new mood believe that the position of the new leadership will be different, or at least they think they have some good reasons for believing this. But nobody wants to bring up the subject, not even in the midst of the electoral campaigns. In addition to the absence of an opposition the current campaign is characterised by the lack of debate on the very issues that make the US, Europe, Israel and some Arab regimes so optimistic, by the unprecedented extent to which external regional and international considerations are overshadowing internal concerns and by the propagandistic dissemination of a climate of optimism among a worn and shattered people. The opposition did not unite and field a presidential nominee; all talk is on the Sharm El-Sheikh conference and even a call for a peace conference in London; Israel has aired its optimism on the prospects of a particular candidate and everyone hopes that Marwan Al-Barghouti will withdraw his candidacy so that the situation does not freeze over again. And they call these elections? What they want are elections that rubberstamp a political agenda that has been set in advance. But no one is discussing that agenda, while Palestinian "fixed principles" are mouthed like ideological slogans that are acquiring all the hollowness of the Palestinian National Charter. Now there was a document with a long shelf life, and that is precisely where it remained as politicians reverently doffed their hats to it while drawing up policies and programmes that had no bearing upon it and even conflicted with its substance -- that is until the time came to take it off the shelf and change it. Such are the mechanisms of Palestinian politics. We hear endless calls about "fixed principles" in the campaigns, but we have no doubts about the timbre of those calls. Even if the issue at hand is the need to restore calm and stability (by which is meant responding to Israeli demands to "halt terrorism" now that Israel has relinquished its demand to "dismantle the terrorist infrastructure" in order to make things easier for the new Palestinian leaders) before working towards a settlement and peace, this is still a political agenda. No sane person disputes the need to "halt the chaos of the display of arms". But the slogan behind which some politicians have hidden their political agendas can be open to more than one interpretation. It could mean, for example, uniting arms and developing a unified strategy for resistance in accordance with which targeting civilians would cease and operations will be planned capable of enabling Palestinian society to sustain their consequences while simultaneously safeguarding the moral foundations of the resistance. "Halting the chaos of the display of arms" could also be taken to mean stopping all forms of armed resistance and tightening up security, for which we should read both Palestinian internal security and Israeli security. Clearly the politicians citing this slogan do not intend the first reading, for otherwise Sharon would not be so cheerful. So why not come right out and tell people what they mean so that we can discuss the matter sensibly? European foreign ministers who had formerly heeded Israel's orders and snubbed Arafat are now rushing to the occupied territories to meet with the Palestinian leadership. Blair is also planning a visit and Bush is promising his visitors to get negotiations on the Palestinian track going again because the Arab situation is now ripe enough to accept new approaches to the Palestinian question. But the fact is that the Arab situation has been sufficiently ripe for some time. If the clicks are coming quickly at the moment it is just that the string on the prayer beads has worn thin. Most Arab regimes are genuinely convinced that what they are doing is right and have merely been biding their time until domestic public opinion wearies of the subject. No, nothing has changed in the position of most Arab governments, which have been reluctantly restraining themselves from rushing into Israel's embrace. Anyone who believed those tirades emanating from exasperated Arab capitals at the peak of the Intifada is to be pitied. The current international drive, therefore, is not so much affected by change as it is racing to produce change. Those promises of financial aid and investment and of getting the negotiating process back into gear are working; they have raised the hopes and expectations of the Palestinian people, stimulated the Israeli economy and injected adrenaline into the Palestinian economic bloodstream, which has had the immediate effect of encouraging some Palestinian sectors to proclaim their confidence in an economic upswing. A brief glance at the exposure in the Israeli press these days of the practices of the Israeli army during the Intifada is sufficient for one to begin to fathom the sheer hell that the inhabitants of Palestinian cities and villages lived through at a time when global television cameras were turned the other way. At that time, too, the foreign officials who are currently flocking to Palestine refused so much as to contemplate sanctions against Israel and the full ramifications of the rulings of the International Court of Justice. But now Arafat is dead and a different tune is in the air. Now those gentlemen callers who formerly snubbed Arafat are looking for a Palestinian peace partner. Specifically, they are looking for one who is realistic and prepared to deal with matters as they stand, not one who will bother them with reminders about international resolutions, ICJ rulings, international legitimacy and moral principles. Realism, from their point of view, entails calling a halt to all forms of resistance and entering into "realistic" negotiations with Israel on the basis of the American-set ceiling for Palestinian demands with the promise of something called a "state" at the other end. To them, a realistic Palestinian peace partner is also one that will not bore them with the endless repetition of unrealistic ideas. The toppling of an entire regime in Iraq was realistic. The overturn of the apartheid system in South-Africa was realistic. Entire empires crumble -- that is obvious and therefore realistic. But to touch one hair on the head of Israel's major settlements or of its occupation of Jerusalem, or to bring up the subject of the Palestinian right of return, even as stated under international law and resolutions -- well, that's plainly unrealistic. In tandem with the new mood music over the Palestinian track the Israel press is working overtime to generate rumours regarding the Syrian track. This task has been handed to journalists known for their contacts with the Israeli security establishment and whose credibility has been belied many times in the past. Nevertheless, the Arab media, as is often its want, regurgitates what appears in the Israeli press without pausing to consider the source, the context or the aim. Indeed, it appears that Israel can spread any rumour it wants in the Arab world, so confident it is that there are newspapers out there that will translate and publish what appears in the Israeli press. The relevant articles in the Israeli press indicate a systematic and concerted attempt to portray Syria as so desperate to resume negotiations with Israel that it is willing to back down on such "traditional" positions as the demand for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights in accordance with international resolutions or the insistence on the "Rabin deposit" as the starting point for any new round of negotiations. Never loathe to stoop to the crude, some of these journalists have put it about that the Syrian president is rebelling against his foreign minister, as though the latter had dominated foreign policy decisions and the former is now growing into his own, the proof of which is to be found in his willingness to resume negotiations unconditionally. The logic is not only circular, its implications are obvious: a strong and intelligent Arab leader is one who is prepared to see things the Israeli way; a leader who clings to national principles and interests is weak and easily manipulated by the nasty and crafty people who surround him. Such malicious, childish and almost risible ruses persist in spite of the fact that time has proven the credibility of Syria's stances on peace and the resumption of negotiations, even in the eyes of some of Syria's harshest critics. It would be interesting to see a study on the sheer quantity of lies and fabrications that were disseminated about the Syrian position during its negotiations with Israel and that were later laid to rest by American writers and politicians in the know, such as former President Clinton and his envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, and also by informed Israeli writers and politicians. According to these sources, Syria never once budged from its insistence upon its right to full sovereignty over its occupied territories. They also said that a breakthrough occurred when Israel conceded to this demand, but that the talks broke down again because Israel then backed down on its pledge and denied ever having made it. Why then the current rumour campaign about a "change" in the Syrian position? Firstly, it aims to create false expectations with regard to a shift in Syrian policy, even on fundamental negotiating issues. It is attributing to Damascus attitudes that Damascus had always rejected, not necessarily out of principle but because they harm its negotiating position, whereas Israel's insistence on the unconditional resumption of negotiations was its way of evading its obligations in accordance with the progress that had been achieved and in accordance with international resolutions. Today Israel is painting Damascus as "moderate" or having finally moderated its stance. That way, when Damascus reaffirms its principles everyone will condemn it for reverting to its "old", "inflexible" and "petrified" positions. It is a dangerous ploy, aiming to undermine a position that is in fact moderate, rational and principled, in that it proposes peace on the basis of international resolutions and Syrian sovereignty over its land. The second aim of the rumour campaign is to portray Syria as weak and isolated, and therefore panting to board the negotiating train so that it can regain friends and ease off international pressures. Meanwhile Israel, according to the current spin, is barely aware that Syria exists and spurns its attempts to court it by reprimanding it for its role in Lebanon, for its support of Hizbullah and for not closing down the offices of Palestinian factions in Damascus. Whenever Syria, in its talks with foreign or Arab officials, reaffirms its desire for peace this is somehow construed as a love letter to Israel that Israel, not to be wooed by mere demonstrations of affection, returns unopened with a slap on Syria's hand. Because Israel is determined to wriggle out of negotiating over the core issues in the established framework for these negotiations, it is attempting to cast Syria as weak and beleaguered and, therefore, virtually begging to resume negotiations with Israel. The image conflicts with all the evidence, such as the alteration to the wording of Resolution 1559, the European partnership it signed and the unprecedented spate of international communications with Damascus. No wonder Israel is determined to stir up trouble for Syria. Naturally it will never admit that Syria is strong and self-confident in its position. The only party that insists on conditions for resuming negotiations with the Palestinians and with Syria is Israel. It is the only party that has consistently avoided negotiations without preconditions, apart from the framework as established by international resolutions, because it knows the price it would have to pay, as Sharon has been so frank as to admit. He also knows that Syria's position on the negotiations has not changed. So it will not hurt if Syria restates its position to its visitors and guests, especially if this makes life more awkward for Sharon. Any negotiating process must proceed in accordance with a certain framework, substance and logic. International resolutions have established such a framework and substance for negotiations between Syria and Israel. To insist on adhering to this framework is not a precondition; to deny the validity of international resolutions and to attempt to circumvent them by raising issues that have nothing to do with the substance of negotiations, such as Syria's policy on the Palestinian cause or in Lebanon, now that is stipulating conditions. Nor should negotiations begin from zero. This is not a condition. It is only natural that they should begin on the basis of progress that has already been made. To insist that they begin from scratch every time Israel gets a new government is, again, a precondition and an entirely irrational one at that. Meanwhile, only one power has the capacity to guarantee that Israel returns the land it has occupied to its proper owners within the framework of an agreement, which must inevitably be reached through negotiations. This is the US, not an envoy or even a stream of envoys from Arab or European countries, however sincere, important and constructive their mediating efforts.
