Palestinians’ Patience Being Severely Tested

Secretary of State Warren Christopher recently announced “the development of an emergency plan” to improve the economic situation in Gaza and the West Bank. But it was hard to find the United States anywhere in the proposal, other than in the citizenship of the announcer: The plan was developed by a U.N. coordinator, the primary donor was Norway and no specific U.S. role was laid out. Unless the Clinton administration asserts leadership in delivering urgent relief to the Palestinians, the plan’s “development” could outlast the emergency, with unhappy consequences for peace in the Middle East.

The administration swiftly responded to the terrorism that swept Israel recently, expressing its solidarity with grieving Israelis, providing the government with technical support and moving to shore up the peace process. That these actions were moral and tactically wise is evident in the recovering mood in Israel. But administration officials have not similarly responded, morally or tactically, to the harsh consequences of the closure of the borders between Israel and the fragmented Palestinian territories. They may even have accepted the view that continued Palestinian hardship could reduce the violence.

Such thinking goes something like this: Facing elections in May, the Israeli government needs the closures for both security and political reasons. The Palestinians would be better served by a Labor Party victory, so they should be patient. In any case, the U.S. Congress is in no mood to be generous toward the Palestinians; the hardships brought on by the closures may even focus Palestinian anger against the terrorists.

The results of this approach are beginning to filter in. Polls indicate that the early Palestinian condemnations of the terrorists are quickly turning into resentment of Israel. In the two days following the last of the suicide bombings, Hamas’ support was measured at 14%. One week after the borders were sealed, backing for Hamas rose to 30%.

Emboldened by this trend, Hamas leaders have threatened to unleash their suicide bombers again, in the name of avenging the border closures and underscoring Yasser Arafat’s apparent inabil-ity to reopen them. In such an atmosphere, Prime Minister Shimon Peres is certain to be even more determined to keep the territories sealed, probably until the Israeli elections on May 29, lest he be seen as caving in to threats. The resulting cycle is a sure formula for disaster.

Whatever Israel has to do to ensure its security, trying to persuade miserable Palestinians that their suffering is the right medicine for eventual relief is as reasonable as telling grieving Israelis that the terrorist horror they endured is a definite sign that peace is just around the corner. That is why perfectly rational leaders cannot do the right thing in the face of public rage. That is why they desperately need help.

To be sure, the fight against terrorism requires tough measures. But it also requires denying terrorists any semblance of legitimacy. Punishing a whole population that rejected terrorism at the ballot box is simply the wrong way to achieve the goal. Instead, immediate economic aid and some signals of empathy are what’s needed.

Indeed, the administration’s approach to the peace process stands on this: Punish its opponents and reward its supporters. But to Palestinians, the boundary between supporters and opponents of peace looks confusingly blurred; their economic conditions, which have significantly deteriorated since the Palestinian-Israeli peace accords, are getting even worse. In Israel and the United States, the perception spawned by the Oslo accords--that Palestinian and Israeli majorities are partners for peace fighting against a common enemy--is reverting to the days when interests seemed hopelessly in conflict.

Perhaps more important, Palestinian morale is daily fading, at a time when greater Palestinian boldness will be called for: To maintain Israeli public support for the peace process in the weeks leading up to the elections, the Palestinian Authority is expected to continue its aggressive crackdown on militants and their institutions--including those that have been providing public services the authorities themselves cannot duplicate. Palestinians will also need to speak out louder against terrorism and in favor of peace.

In this desperate environment, Hamas called last week on the Palestinian security forces to stop obeying the Palestinian authorities. Although there is no indication that their appeal will attract any takers, the mere fact that they try is a reflection of the mood on the ground. In the first meetings of the newly elected Palestine Legislative Council, members harshly criticized the tough round-up measures of the Palestinian Authority, a further indication that the democratically elected council will not act as a rubber stamp for executive decisions.

While Palestinian supporters of peace constitute a faint voice when the public mood is so charged, opponents of peace will intensify their efforts to derail the process and affect the outcome of the Israeli elections. Although one can hope that tough security measures will minimize the chances of another terrorist attack, there is simply no way to prevent suicide bombings in the short term. Should horror strike again in such a psychological environment, the kind of Palestinian and Israeli responses needed to salvage what remains of the peace process will be difficult to summon. Israeli elections, the key focus of current policy, will be its first victim.

The Clinton administration has found it useful to blame its limited relief efforts on congressional opposition to potential--and already approved--aid to the Palestinian territories. Although Congress will probably stay skeptical, the administration, if it chooses to make the issue a priority, can make a compelling strategic case for emergency assistance, especially given the costs of the alternative. It would also be the moral thing to do. Palestinian unemployment is nearing 70%. Members of the same family cannot, in some instances, visit each other. Food shortages have occurred. Movement from one Palestinian area to another has been highly restricted. Many Palestinian Christians were unable to reach churches in Jerusalem to celebrate Easter.

What is forgotten in all this is that Palestinians possess neither the capabilities nor the right to become self-sufficient. Lacking statehood in their ambiguous “autonomy,” they cannot simply seek alternatives to Israel on the outside. Until agreement is reached on their final status, Israel and the international community remain responsible for their welfare. If Israel’s own tragic predicament absolves it of some of that responsibility, someone else must step into the moral void.*