The time was almost midnight on September 20th when a number of the satellite stations interrupted their regular programming to announce that Israeli soldiers had warned Palestinians living near Arafat’s headquarters that the building would be blown up in 15 minutes if those inside it didn’t come out.

Within those tense minutes the streets of Ramallah were full of ordinary Palestinians. Marchers often led by women were getting larger and larger in numbers as people trapped in their homes for days on end had decided to shake off the injustice that had befallen them. many of the demonstrators were not necessarily Arafat supporters but rather they were every day Palestinians attempting to defend their national honor.

This popular uprising that began in the Ramallah neighborhood of Im al Sharit quickly spread to Nablus, Tulkarem , Gaza and Bethlehem. The following day women and men came out with pots and pans and beat on their household utinsels as a sign of agner and protest. The next day a candle light vigil was the way people in Palestinian cities decided was their way to break what they considered a repressive curfew.

In 1987 Palestinians introduce the term intiafada to the international lexicon. In the fall of 2000 many gave the protests the term Al Aqsa Intifada but on most people’s tongues was simply the term the second intifada. What happened that evening in Ramallah gets my vote as the third intifada.

Since then schools in many West Bank cities have decided to stay open every school day regardless of whether the Israelis are declaring their arbitrary curfews. Some areas are organizing popular schools. Some of the more wealthy schools are sending homework to their students by email. Curfew days have become high traffic days on the Internet as most people are doing their office work or school work from their homes. A major culture is being written up, recorded, photographed and spread on cyberspace about life under curfew.

What happened late on Friday night was not without a warning. A week earlier the representatives of the Palestinian people did what no other Arab parliament has ever done. They forced a government appointed by the president to resign rather than be shamed into a vote of no confidence. A public opinion poll commissioned by the Search for Common Ground organization also found a majority of Palestinians supporting ideas of non violent resistance.

But like the previous two intifadas, many people are trying to claim copyright to the latest protests. Supporters of President Arafat’s party are claiming that it was Fatah activists who got the ball rolling. Many would disagree saying that like the previous intifadas this was a popular movement that was triggered by the anger of the population rather than the decision of a person or group.

Also like previous intifadas many of those romantically hooked to violent protests are unable to let the marchers carry out their protests without starting to throw stones or in some cases use fire arms. Such acts not only are contrary to the spirit of non violence but they endanger those involved thus quickly reducing the possibility that large numbers of ordinary Palestinians participate.

One of the first martyrs of this third intifada was a journalist Issam Tillawi who was gunned down by Israeli troops who were distracted from their efforts to blow up Arafat’s headquarters by the sound of ordinary Palestinians sick and tired of being imprisoned in their homes day after day after day.

For a long time many of the international critics of Palestinians have been asking why Palestinians don’t use methods of non violence to try and cause change. They argue that if Palestinians do that, a major change will take place in Israeli and international public opinion that will eventually be translated in political terms. Many have doubts about that seeing that the Sharon government is only interested in a Palestinian population that raises the white flag of surrender. When Palestinians in Ramallah carried out their plans to hold a candle light vigil on Wednesday night, the Israeli army which had declared that the following day curfew would be lifted decided to reverse itself and re impose the curfew. On Thursday some people adhered to the Israeli army’s curfew announcement, but most didn’t. Schools in particular have decided that they will no longer call off their teaching duties according to Israeli army dictates.

What is worrisome, however, is that the Israeli and international press have ignored or belittled the nonviolent nature of what is happening in Palestine this week. It seems that the long awaited change in Israeli and US public opinion will not happen soon as both peoples continue to be bombarded by news that fulfills the aspirations of those wishing to end the conflict in a violent way.

Perhaps one should not give too much weight to the off-the-cuff remarks made by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat during his speech to the Palestinian Legislative Council, but its importance should not be overlooked either.

When he came to the paragraph about the independence of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, Arafat diverted from the prepared text. He told the legislature assembled in his bunker words to the effect that they would do him a favor to relieve him of this awesome responsibility if they are not happy with the way he has been handling his executive powers.

The hint of resignation certainly attempts to fend off the anger of the Palestinian public with his handling of his leadership role. The nearly two years of Intifada have caused a major setback to Palestinian life, economy and sense of direction.

But the power of such a hint is not solely intended to the angry representatives of the Palestinian people; it goes further, to the Israelis and the Americans. While the Americans have called for changes in the Palestinian leadership, Israel has not left one derogatory term that they have not applied to the Palestinian president. Israeli tanks, which were poised a few hundred meters outside Arafat’s Ramallah headquarters, have turned the Palestinian leader into a prisoner in his own office. They have bombed, shelled, blown up and destroyed every symbol of the Palestinian National Authority. Palestinian policemen, most of them uninvolved in resisting the Israelis, have been killed (at times point-blank) simply because of the PNA uniform, which they were wearing.

Yet, despite the rhetoric and the anti-PNA violence, the Israelis have not attempted to harm the Palestinian leader. They have called him irrelevant, yet they are closely watching him, somehow with the hope of reengaging with him at a later date. It seems that the Israelis are waiting for Arafat to declare surrender or to show clear signs of accepting Israeli dictates.

In the meanwhile, the Israelis are present in every Palestinian city, town or village. Their troops are able to enter any Palestinian locale at whim, without even having to hear the lip service rejection that the US was showing a few months ago. At one time, President George Bush declared firmly that Israel must withdraw from Palestinian territories; now even this demand has disappeared from the White House daily briefings.

The problem is that the PNA has not been able to cause the Israelis to pay the logical price for their reoccupation. They are holding three million Palestinians virtually in a large prison. They apply day-long curfews when they want, lift it when they choose. Yet they are not taking any responsibility for the day-to-day lives of the Palestinians even while they are ruining it. As the Israeli journalist Danny Rubinstein said, the Israelis are having the cake and eating it too. They are occupying without having to pay the cost of such occupation.

The price of occupation must be financial, moral and political. An occupier is obliged by international law to provide for the people under its occupation. They must pay teachers and other public servants and allow the people under its military rule a normal, productive economic life. The full price of occupation should be that Israel take responsibility for security matters. Since they occupy all areas, they can’t blame any recognized Palestinian counterpart for what happens in the security field. And the moral price of occupation is the evil it reflects on the state of Israel as a 21 century power that holds a population against their will using tanks and helicopters.

What is saving Israel from having to pay this price of occupation is the presence of remnants of the PNA, and Arafat, in Ramallah.

The Israelis can use this fig leaf to avoid doing anything (except wreck havoc) in the reoccupied Palestinian areas. What is ironic is that this is taking place at the same time when Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is rejecting the Oslo accords and all the agreements signed with the PLO since (treaties which gave birth to the PNA).

The Palestinian leadership must not allow this status quo to continue. If the Israeli troops are not willing to withdraw, Israel has to pay a higher price for its reoccupation. The only way that this price will be paid is for the Palestinian leadership to have to courage to take the political offensive and give the Israeli and the international community an ultimatum.

It is not enough to hint at resignation. The Palestinian leader must force the choice on Israel and the international community. Israel must either withdraw in order for the PNA to be able to work properly or the PNA, including its president, will resign. If the Israelis will be forced to take full responsibility, they will be further exposed as a brutal, anti-democratic and anti-peace regime that is only interested in Palestinian land.