Conflicting reports from Ramallah and Jerusalem

Thursday, October 28, 2004

he conflicting reports from the Muqata concerning Arafat’s health sparked a flood of Israeli commentary and speculation about ‘the day after.’ The overriding consensus was that a collective leadership of former prime minister Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei’ and Salim Zaanun, chairman of the Palestinian National Council (the Palestinian parliament for both the territories and the Palestinian diaspora) would take control. According to one report, Arafat actually signed a presidential order to that effect two days ago.

On Israel Radio, Jibril Rajoub, Arafat’s National Security Advisor, said that the rais is ‘in stable condition; did not lose consciousness. We can’t ignore the facts he was sick, he is sick. But there is no danger to his life. He has a stone in gall bladder; teams from Egypt, Jordan, Palestinian and Tunisian are there and they will decide what medicine he needs, and if he needs surgery. It’s a lie that he has cancer, or heart disease. That’s all lies and rumors. He told me two days ago there was no need for me to return to the Muqata, he told me to remain in Cairo on my mission.’ His mission, by the way, was to meet with Osama el Baz, presumably to discuss the Egyptian role in promoting both a pan-Palestinian ceasefire and ways Egypt will help the PA maintain law and order (and prevent a Hamas takeover) in Gaza after an Israeli disengagement.

Israel Radio also reported that the Arafat’s illness – whatever it is – prompted something nearly historic: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who has kept Arafat locked up in the Ramallah government compound since Christmas of 2001, spoke by phone with his Palestinian counterpart, Qurei’, last night, promising that Israel would not prevent any medical assistance to Arafat and would allow his physicians to transport the Palestinian leader wherever necessary. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom indicated on Israel Radio that if a request came for Arafat to be hospitalized in Israel, Israel would accede. But he added that ‘knowing Arafat and the Palestinians, I think they would prefer to take him to an Arab country.’

Clearly, however, Arafat’s condition is serious. And while there was no chortling about it in the Israeli reporting – indeed, the sudden gaping vacuum so obvious after he is gone seems to be sparking second thoughts about Sharon’s policy of rendering the Palestinian leader ‘irrelevant’ – there was speculation about what an Arafat death would mean for the disengagement process, as well as the region at large.

The conventional wisdom is that without Arafat, there is no need for a unilateral disengagement, at least not the way it was proposed by Sharon to the Knesset. On the other hand, without Arafat as a lightning rod, Sharon would be hard pressed to avoid engaging in dialogue with Qurei’ or any other Palestinian leadership that would emerge. And since the unilateralism of the withdrawal was meant to avoid any dialogue with the Palestinians, since it would mean talk with Arafat, the disengagement’s terms could change dramatically.

rafat’s condition, and the speculation about his succession if and when he does pass away, overshadowed the political crisis in Israel created by Finance Minister Netanyahu’s challenge to Sharon. Netanyahu has now been quoted as saying that elections are coming and he will be the Likud candidate for prime minister. The so-called rebels have anointed him their leader – though in his last media appearance, yesterday morning, he insisted that he would support disengagement (as long as there is no Palestinian terrorism accompanying it, a condition that would make it very easy for him to object to the process next spring, when the vote to start the evacuations take place.)

The crisis is far from over. The business community is still in shock over Netanyahu’s move, aligning with the radical Right to demand a national referendum on the disengagement – even though there is a 80+ majority in the Knesset against a referendum. Silvan Shalom is trying to mediate between the two sides, but the conventional wisdom is that he will probably fail, meaning Netanyahu will resign in another 12 days, if Sharon doesn’t agree to a referendum. Sharon will then have to name a finance minister – Ehud Olmert is a candidate, as is Teva Chairman Eli Hurvitz – and face the Netanyahu challenge.

The fight between Netanyahu and Sharon will be over who owns the Likud – and the fight will smash the ruling party into at least two parties and possibly more. When Ben-Gurion broke away from Mapai, taking young Shimon Peres and Moshe Dayan with him, to form Rafi, he was not reelected as prime minister. When Dayan formed his own party, he barely got himself into the Knesset. When Sharon formed his own party, he also barely made it into the Knesset.

But that is all speculation about the future, not unlike the speculation about what will happen to the Palestinian leadership after Arafat. Reasoned thinking says that Netanyahu (and Limor Livnat ) could yet use the huge majority in the Knesset against a referendum, to ‘climb down the ladder.’ But as the events of the past few days show, making a prediction in Israeli politics is a risky business.

There’s an old Yiddish fable about a rabbi whose disciples said he was so wise he could teach a dog to talk. The king called in the rabbi and ordered him to teach his dog – or else he would be killed. I need time, said the rabbi. The king said, okay, and gave the rabbi three months to teach the dog to talk. The rabbi’s worried students asked him what would happen. ‘Either the dog talks, I die, or the king dies.’ In the fable, the king indeed dies. And over and over today, it was clear listening to the gossip about Israeli politics, that as of last night, when the bulletins about Arafat’s condition began to hit the air waves, the Israeli political arena is now on tenterhooks, knowing that the man Sharon tried to make ‘irrelevant’ to the political process in the conflict, remains the most relevant of all. Just before noon, it was reported that Arafat ate some cornflakes this morning and that Olmert said Arafat’s fate would not affect the disengagement.