Sidelining of Yasser Arafat raises Palestinian hopes

For pilgrims to Ramallah, the symbol of authority in the Palestinian capital was an ugly one.

Yasser Arafat's headquarters, two drab buildings joined by a bridge amid acres of rubble and twisted metal, was formerly the seat of power for the Palestinian Authority.

But now its importance is on the wane as members of the Palestinian elite and the diplomatic corps are making another journey - to an unfinished residential district on the outskirts of Ramallah where Mahmoud Abbas, the new Palestinian Prime Minister, lives. Enthusiasts believe the creation of his new post and the dilution of Arafat's power is a revolution. Even critics admit it is a positive development.

Abbas, better known as Abu Mazen, was appointed this month after the international community insisted Arafat give up some of his power. It is also the first step in the 'road map', the international remedy for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to the map, if Palestinians carry out government reforms and cease their support for terrorism, a Palestinian state will eventually be achieved.

Since the Oslo agreements laid the foundations for a proto-Palestinian state, Arafat, the authority's elected chairman, has enjoyed complete control of appointments and patronage. The cabinet was powerless and the Palestinian Legislative Council rarely met.

'For the first time Ministers will have to answer for themselves. They will not be able to go to cabinet and stonewall, knowing they have done their real work with Arafat,' said one diplomat. Abdul Jawad Saleh, a member of the council, said he was relieved Arafat's wings had been clipped. 'The problem is the same with any dictator. If you are a Minister, it does not matter how good you are at the job, so long as you are loyal to the dictator. It is the first time there is a degree of accountability in the Palestinian Authority and it may lead to full transparency.'

Many Palestinians hope Abu Mazen will provide them with honest and open government, but Israel wants to sideline Arafat completely. It accuses him of starting the second intifada and after each suicide bomb Israeli officials blame Arafat in person.

An Israeli precondition for the resumption of peace talks is a change in the Palestinian leadership, and it remains to be seen if Tel Aviv will accept the appointment of Abu Mazen as an adequate change.

Abu Mazen was a co-founder of Fatah with Arafat and is the secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. His greatest triumph was the signing of the 1993 Oslo agreements, which he negotiated on behalf of the Palestinians. He believes peaceful negotiation is the best route to achieving what the Palestinians want.

In the next 10 days Abu Mazen is planning to name his cabinet. He is expected to ditch at least half of the cabinet appointed by Arafat in what is likely to be their first major confrontation. The grassroots of Fatah are keen to get rid of anyone associated with corruption, and these are all Arafat loyalists. Two names have emerged as likely new Ministers: Mohammed Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub, the former security chiefs of the Gaza and West Bank. Both would be useful to Abu Mazen in implementing a ceasefire and restricting the activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which are unlikely to agree to an end to hostilities. Both men left the cabinet after disagreements with Arafat.

Diplomatic sources say the success of Abu Mazen depends on two factors; his ability to work with Arafat and the way Israel reacts to his premiership. Dr Gil Feiler, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, said Israelis were sceptical of Abu Mazen because of his links with Arafat. 'This is far from being even a meagre revolution, but it is better than nothing. The Israelis hope that it is the beginning of movement.'

Diplomatic sources point out that changes in the Palestinian leadership will be futile unless Israel responds by improving the lives of Palestinians, allowing free movement and stopping military incursions. Ahmad Ghnaim, a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, said: 'The main obstacle to progress will not be relations between Arafat and Abu Mazen. It is the Israelis. They still have not offered any positive response to the changes that have gone on inside the authority. If that does not change, the changes in the authority will be in jeopardy.'

The British Government has invested much political capital in achieving progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tony Blair has insisted that a 'road map' timetable for reforms and the development of a Palestinian state should be published when Abu Mazen's cabinet is ratified by the legislative council.

Israel has reacted angrily to Britain's attempts to press the US to take a firmer line with Tel Aviv on its handling of the Palestinian situation. Last week the Israeli Foreign Ministry summoned the British ambassador to complain about Britain's linking of the war in Iraq with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel fears an alliance between the UK and the US State Department, which also desires a solution in the region, could restrict its room for manoeuvre. Until now Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, has felt that the issue of the road map could be avoided indefinitely while President Bush is in power.

Sharon's commitment to peace is doubted by many. His government includes Ministers from many disparate right-wing parties and does not accept the road map. This means peace can be vetoed by any small extremist group, regardless of what the Palestinians do.

While the world argues about the next step towards peace, the lives of Palestinians are becoming more miserable. Optimism about political change could easily turn to despair and be channelled back towards Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which claim peace initiatives are just a tactic to thwart Palestinian aspirations.

Ahmad Ghnaim said: 'If the international community fails to persuade Israel to take proper action, like withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza and stopping assassinations and killing civilians, it will send a clear message that the approach of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is correct.'