The victory of Mahmoud Abbas in the Palestinian presidential election poses a huge challenge to the Palestinian leadership. By being voted chairman of the PLO's executive committee hours after the death of former president Yasser Arafat, Abbas clinched the support of the organization that represents all Palestinians, including those in the diaspora. Popular election as president of the Palestinian National Authority gives Abbas the grassroots legitimacy to carry out his political program.
That program, while similar to Arafat's, differs in key ways. Abbas -- also known as Abu Mazen -- has been publicly and consistently critical of what he calls the "militarization of the intifada." Even before Arafat's death, Abbas argued that the use of force by militants weakens the Palestinian negotiating position. He stuck to this position throughout his electoral campaign, refusing the demands of hardline Palestinian factions that he apologize for his previous statements.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Abbas conducts himself in a businesslike manner, and he strongly believes in the rule of law and in the need for real civilian governance to assume preeminence in Palestinian politics. In this he also differs from Arafat, who believed that the revolutionary mindset must continue so as long as Palestinians lived under an illegal foreign occupation. Until liberation, there could be no business as usual.
By winning election on a clear anti-violence and pro-rule-of-law platform, Abbas has the mandate and the responsibility to carry out this policy. He needs to make it clear to every armed Palestinian that there will be no tolerance for any unofficial group carrying arms or conducting military attacks from Palestinian territory.
In order to preserve national unity, Abbas will obviously need to use all his persuasive skills to convince radical groups -- some in his own Fatah movement -- to respect that approach. As chairman of the PLO, he will be under extreme pressure not to delegitimize the internationally sanctioned acts of resistance against Israeli military targets. In order to counter that pressure, he will have to show that a cessation of violence is in the higher interest of Palestinians.
Abbas will find it equally challenging to apply rule-of-law principles to a traumatized community that is reeling after nearly five years of violence, oppression and draconian travel restrictions imposed by the Israelis. As in the issue of the militarization of the intifada, this is not a simple matter, as it concerns forces outside the control of Abbas and his government.
Nevertheless, internal policies will be of grave importance. The day-to-day lives -- and livelihoods -- of Palestinians need immediate improvement. The Israeli-built wall to the west of the West Bank means that Palestinian unemployment will continue to rise and living standards will continue to drop. To counter this, Abbas will have to seek external Arab and international support. The real need is to encourage investment, primarily from Palestinians and Arabs. But this is unlikely without major legal and administrative reforms, and more generally, good governance and ironclad application of the rule of law.
The key to establishing civil order is peace. No matter how persuasive Abbas is in convincing radical groups to put down their arms, a unilateral ceasefire will not last long if it is not mutual. The role of the Israeli occupation forces will thus be crucial in determining the success of Abbas' daunting mission. Indeed, the task that Abbas faces will become impossible if the Israeli policy of "targeted killings" is allowed to continue while Palestinian leaders are working seriously to put an end to acts of violence against Israelis.
Ultimately, the main agenda for the new Palestinian president in negotiations with Israel will be to push the Israelis to make good on their repeated international assurances that a viable contiguous Palestinian state is a realistic goal in the near future.
But if left to Israelis and Palestinians alone, the goal of Palestinian independence within the 1967 borders of Palestine will most likely remain out of reach. The international community, led by the US, must invest effort and political capital to realize this goal.
The new Palestinian president faces a challenging agenda and high popular expectations. Much will depend on how Abbas handles himself and how he governs.
But the ultimate question is what Israel and the international community will do if Abbas fulfills his pledge to end anti-Israeli violence and apply the rule of law in a functioning democracy.
Palestinians have chosen; now the world must make its choice as well.
Daoud Kuttab is director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in Ramallah, West Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US