Torbjørn Jagland chairs the Norwegian parliamentary foreign affairs committee and has become one of the oft-consulted politicians on the Arab-Israeli conflict in Norwegian media. He's become rather more thoughtful through the years, though he's still nearly hopelessly naive about the dynamics of the conflict.
So when the Norwegian Press Agency, which should be known as PLO (Norway) interviewed him about the Palestinian election, he had something to say:
First and foremost, that the Palestinians had sent a "clear signal:"
We must remember that the elections were held under Israeli occupation. But that the Palestinians have sent a clear signal that they wish for negotiations, while they also distance themselves from violence.
But he also sent a warning:
But many are misinterpreting the situation if they think Abbas will be more moderate than Arafat. Abbas will be just as tough on the central issues as Arafat was.
It is, of course, all up to the Israelis:
Things will go wrong if the Israel and the international community demands a long period of no violence before things start happening.
Jagland may not have noticed that things have been relatively quiet in the West Bank and Gaza lately. By "relatively quiet" I mean enough violence to have sent any European country into a state of full war, but less than usual for the last several years. Israelis and Palestinians know why: the security fence and incursions into Gaza have worked. The futility of terrorism as a political tool is becoming apparent, and Abbas has said as much.
Neither may Jagland appreciate that Abbas is the official candidate for Fatah, which in turn is the largest organization within the PLO. His election is a reflection of the status quo; it surely would have been a "signal" if someone else were elected.
What Jagland fails to appreciate, is that it was actually a contested election; Abbas had real opposition that wasn't intimidated too badly. This is truly a breakthrough in the Arab world and something that deserves notice.
Jagland also fails to appreciate that Israel had everything to gain by ensuring a fair election. For years, the Israeli position has been that Arafat needs to be replaced (which has happened), democratic reforms need to be underway (which - for the moment- they are), and there's got to be some sign of moderation (which there arguably is).
By any reasonable standard, Jagland's analysis is pretty weak; but by Norwegian standards it's way above average. So, just like the Palestinian election, there's some reason to be cautiously hopeful about it all.
Comments