• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Abbas
Palestinian leader

Two months after their long-time leader Yasser Arafat passed away, the Palestinians held elections to pick his replacement on Sunday.

Palestinians and Israelis have mixed views on how far the election and transfer of leadership will affect the situation in Israel, and half a world away, students and faculty at UCLA also have strong and divergent opinions on the issue.

Mahmoud Abbas, who won the election by a landslide, will pick up the job of solving the disputes in Israel, which are now more than half a century old.

The task will be monumental, to say the least.

“There is a difficult mission ahead to build our state, to achieve security for our people, ... to reach our goal of an independent state,” Abbas said after declaring his victory.

President Bush has declared his willingness to work with Abbas and has invited him to the White House, an offer he never extended to Arafat.

Bush expressed optimism that, as the new leader, Abbas will provide an opportunity for peace in Israel that has not been seen in many years.

Along with Bush, many in the United States and here at UCLA see this as a hopeful moment for Israelis and Palestinians.

“I’m definitely very glad that there’s some new leadership involved,” said Arash Nafisi, vice president of Bruins for Israel.

Abbas may be a leader who will bring a more compromising, progressive stance toward politics than his predecessor and open the door for successful negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“There’s a chance, finally, that the Palestinians will have a leader who can bring them into the modern world,” said Scott Bartchy, a professor of history at UCLA. “This is the best chance we’ve had yet.”

Others, though, are not so optimistic about the effect the new leader will have on the situation in Israel because the Palestinian leadership is not the crux of the problem. Rather, many point to the Israeli presence in disputed territories as the center of the problem.

Even if Abbas may potentially be the leader who can find a solution to the decades-old problems, there is concern among Palestinian supporters and advocates that Israeli and U.S. agendas will inhibit his ability to represent his people adequately.

Some predict that both the United States and Israel will be unwilling to work with any leader who does not acquiesce to many, if not all, of the demands they present.

History Professor Gabriel Piterberg said Arafat encountered a similar problem and was delegitimized by the United States and Israeli governments and consequently rendered ineffective.

For this reason, the results of the recent elections may have little effect on the overall situation in Israel.

“The limitations imposed by Israel and the U.S. on any Palestinian leader ... mean that I don’t know that this will make much of a difference,” Piterberg said.

The exchange of leadership is seen by some to be such an important moment in Israeli-Palestinian relations because many thought Arafat was the primary barrier on the road to peace.

“Arafat was not good for anybody and was, if anything, oppressing the Palestinians,” Nafisi said.

Bartchy pointed to Arafat’s inability – or unwillingness – to stop terrorism as one of his major failings and an area where Abbas has the potential to make a positive difference.

“I don’t think Arafat really had the power to get it done – or I don’t think he wanted to,” Bartchy said.

But others have a much different view of Arafat as both a man and a leader.

Piterberg referred to Arafat as a “founding father” figure and “the person who brought back the Palestinian cause” – certainly not the man who was responsible for the violence in Israel.

And others say it is not the Palestinian but the Israeli government that needs to change, as Ariel Sharon’s refusal to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza has done the most to obstruct progress towards peace.

“Too much emphasis has been put on this election,” said Jiries Mogannam of al-Adwa.

Rather than focusing on the Palestinian leadership, Mogannam said more emphasis should be put on the decisions and position of the Israeli government, namely their presence in the West Bank and Gaza.

“The problem isn’t who the leader on the Palestinian side is; the problem is the occupation,” he added.

And as far as Mogannam is concerned, “The turning point will be when the occupation ends.”

But even though the new leadership will not be an easy, miraculous cure to the complex problems facing both Israelis and Palestinians, many on both sides hope it may be a chance for a new start and a more trusting relationship between the two countries.

“I think they have the potential to be a good step in the right direction, but its not just a one-sided thing,” Mogannam said.