The Palestinians recently embarked on another effort to search for a real leader that can unite all factions, work effectively with Israel toward a resolution, and maintain international legitimacy as a pro-democratic figurehead. Although that might be a little too much to ask.
The Palestinian Authority announced last week its intention to hold presidential and legislative elections on January 24 of next year. Hamas subsequently rejected participation in the elections, although the terror group may hold parallel elections in the Gaza Strip.
This disparity on elections represents a much larger historical phenomenon amongst the Palestinian factions -an inability to find a leader that unites rival Palestinian groups while also sustaining legitimacy in negotiations with Israel by thwarting terror. This characteristic of Palestinian politics pervades Israel, with skeptics of the peace process claiming that ‘Palestinians don’t know how to help themselves’ due to the near-constant attacks levied against the Jewish state. These critics within Israeli society could easily be silenced if Palestinians break an unfortunate pattern that began decades ago.
The story of failed leadership peaked with former Palestine Liberation Organization head and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, who maintained support from a significant portion of the populations living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but still failed to negotiate a lasting peace.
Arafat sustained stability within the territories by cracking down on democratic institutions, such as the press and political non-governmental organizations. However, he still preserved some level of international support for attempting to shepherd in the peace process. Regardless of Palestinian reverence for Arafat, domestic opposition to negotiations with Israel pervaded the territories, an issue that eventually led to the second intifada and Arafat’s dismissal by the Israeli government as powerless to clamp down on terror.
While Arafat championed the concept of Palestinian nationalism, he lacked the leadership necessary to help his people obtain sovereignty.
More recently, Palestinians disregard current PA President Mahmoud Abbas as unable to unite the various factions and even more incapable of cultivating the creation of an independent and sovereign state. His recent postponement of a vote on the Goldstone report led to additional drops in polling figures for the Palestinian leader and highlighted the growing domestic opposition to Abbas.
Similarly, Ismail Haniyeh and Aziz Duwaik, two top Hamas officials who effectively control the Gaza Strip, face minimal support in the West Bank and lack any credibility in the West and within Israel, effectively rendering them incapable of legitimately pursuing peace even if they desired.
From the Arafat years through the current era of competing governments in the territories, the Palestinians sought true leadership to foster the creation of an independent state, instead finding themselves without effective leaders.
Irrespective of their choices in the past, this January marks another opportunity for Palestinians to reassert a desire for peaceful coexistence with Israel in an independent state. Cries of victimization and oppression, however legitimate, can not serve as the foundation for sovereignty or economic and democratic growth.
Instead, Palestinians should rally behind a set of ideas that foster development on parallel initiatives- seeking a political solution to the conflict with Israel while also developing the needed institutions to promote internal growth.
Unpopular Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad embarked on a crusade recently to inspire his people to strive for a better future through hard work and determination. Instead of waiting for handouts from Israel, the Arab world, and the West, he has advocated for the development of institutions -such as an effective judiciary and security apparatus- to foster economic prosperity and provide a foundation for a future state.
None of the popular Palestinian leadership has the domestic or international credibility to sustain peaceful negotiations with Israel while also transforming the political landscape to promote internal and independent growth.
Whoever the Palestinians elect -or at least whoever takes power- should consider this different approach that currently lacks traction within the society largely due to domestic ambivalence and opposition for the one man, Fayyad, who champions these ideas.
Abbas lacks domestic support and repeatedly failed to reconcile rival factions to forge a foundation for a future state. Similarly, Haniyeh remains a terrorist that Israel would never accept at the negotiating table.
Conversely, Marwan Barghouti retains an anti-corruption reputation that could lead to support from proponents of both Fatah and Hamas. However, Barghouti remains locked behind bars in Israel for his hand in terror attacks. Even if Israel agrees to release him, questions persist on Barghouti’s desire to reject violence as a means to achieving an independent state.
While Fayyad truly possess a vision for his people, he has virtually no support among the Palestinian population, one of the reasons that Abbas tapped him as Prime Minister following the disputed 2006 elections.
This void in effective leadership could either be filled through the reinventing of previously failed Palestinian leaders or through the emergence of a new voice. Either way, by promoting independent institutions, forging a foundation for a developing society, and fostering democratic values, the Palestinians can create a thriving society to coexist alongside Israel.
The next Palestinian leader should embrace this concept of institution building to transform victimization and oppression into prosperity and sovereignty.