|
|
|
|
|
TITLE: Clinton's Peace Deal As Indigestible Fast Food |
AUTHOR: Danny Rubinstein |
PUB: Ha'aretz |
DATE: December 28, 2000 |
|
The Palestinian public pressure on Yasser Arafat to reject the American peace proposal reached such a pitch yesterday that the chairman seems to be left without any room to maneuver. Not only have spokesmen for the opposition such as Hamas's Ismail Abu Shanab warned Yasser Arafat that he will not be able to cope with an all-out, mass Intifada which vehemently rejects the proposals, but so too have those in circles close to Arafat been speaking ill of the suggested deal. Following a comment by Abu Ala, who is considered one of the most senior officials in the Palestinian leadership, that the American proposals do not meet the minimum demands of the Palestinian people, these same proposals were yesterday compared to indigestible fast food by the editor of Al Ayyam. Arafat's coalition partners are also adamantly opposed to the peace deal. The Fadda party, lead by Yasser Abed Rabbo who headed the Palestinian contingent that received the proposals from President Clinton during talks in Washington last week, yesterday published a statement calling on Arafat and his men to reject the deal and not to travel to the Washington summit. Spokesmen for the People's Party (formally the Communist Party) said that to accept the deal would mean stepping over the red lines. These sentiments were reiterated by a group of independent Palestinian legislators, many of whom wield much influence and call themselves "the Democratic Alliance." To these, one must add the many Fatah leaders, as well as those from the youth and student movements, the Tanzim and the leaders of the groups based in the refugee camps, all of whom oppose the agreement. The Mufti of the Palestinian Authority and Jerusalem Sheikh Ekrima Sabri has rejected the very idea of a Palestinian concession over the Temple Mount and the areas surrounding it. Some of Arafat's spokesmen and the Palestinian media tried to defend themselves against the acrid criticism by suggesting that the deal be taken to a Palestinian referendum and by describing the intense international pressure (mainly European) on Arafat and the leadership to take President Clinton up on his offer. But it is doubtful if such suggestions will make even the slightest dent on opinion in the territories. One is left with the clear impression that the deeply hostile front toward Israel which currently prevails in Gaza and the West Bank is the main source of the widespread Palestinian opposition to the American initiative. And indeed this hostility is understandable given the number of dead and wounded. For the first time in many years, Palestinian newspapers refused to carry advertisements for Israeli products in the run-up to the festival of Id al Fitr, after it was announced that an embargo should be placed on all Israeli goods. The editorial in yesterday's Al Quds asked "Wherefore the festival?" while one veteran East Jerusalem journalist pointed out that what now interests the Palestinian public is not reaching an agreement with Israel, but rather causing as much pain as possible to the Israelis. END |