East Jerusalem- The road map for peace in the Middle East is off to a good start now that the Palestinian militant groups have adhered to their self-declared hudna. More than a month of quite from the Palestinian side has been registered since that truce declaration. But for this hudna or truce to take root and become the basis for successful peace talks, much more work is still needed. While commitment to carry the various clauses of the road map are essential, what is also needed is a strong measure of goodwill in order to win over public support.

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has met four times with his Israeli counterpart and will soon meet with President Bush yet little change has taken place on the ground. Jewish settlement suspension has not materialized, dismantlement of outposts has become a joke, the Wall continues to be built on the precious little left of Palestinian land and the promises of the Israeli army returning to its pre September 2000 locations has been slow.

The most important aspect of the road map to peace should be the changes in people’s minds towards peace. For the Israeli public traumatized and terrorized by the suicide bombings, the need to end this sad chapter in Palestinian-Israeli relations is extremely important. The hudna is holding up and negotiations are underway to extend it from three months to six months and senior Israeli officials have publicly praised the Palestinians for their commitment to stop the anti Israeli attacks. A few renegade splinter groups have tried to ruin this truce but the Palestinian Authority has reacted very forcefully against such groups.

For Palestinians, however, little has changed in their daily lives. Israel’s military chokes on all aspects of life make it impossible for the Palestinian public to become excited about the prospects of peace. External and internal restrictions on movement are still the rule, with more than three million Palestinians living in a large prison. A modern day pass law system is in effect even for movement within the West Bank. Gaza is still virtually unreachable for Palestinians and even foreigners while Gazans Palestinians can easier reach Japan than travel to see relatives or go to University in the West Bank. Jewish settlers are able to travel in and out of Gaza and the West Bank without any restrictions or permits.

A peace process means a change in the political atmosphere. Such a change needs a strong dose of public support. With over 6,000 Palestinian political prisoners locked up in prisons most without charge or trial the issue of releasing prisoners becomes more than a token gesture. Among the prisoners are 350 children who are held without charge or on politically motivated claims. For over two years most of the prisoners have been detained in prisons that don’t meet international standards and at the same time denied family visits for a variety of procedural and security-related excuses.

Much as the release of prisoners in South Africa became the breakthrough for dramatic progress releasing Palestinian political prisoners will be an important step in rebuilding the fragile Palestinian public opinion. Unlike the Israeli conditions, the difficulties in South Africa were in clearly specifying the definition of political prisoners so as not to include convicted rapist or common criminals. The idea to eliminate prisoners who were involved in violent activities, as the Israelis wish, runs contrary to the spirit of reconciliation that is the basis for any genuine peace. Such an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation is badly needed in order to allow Palestinian negotiators to make the difficult decisions and concessions that any peace agreement will require.

Again similarly to the South African case regarding Mandela, wishing for positive public support is unlikely while the Palestinian national leader continues to be the subject of constant incitement and ridicule as well as virtual house arrest. The elected Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat, must be credited not punished for his unreserved and public support for the road map to peace. Long before the hudna was declared and the road map was officially announced, Yasser Arafat signed into law the Palestinian Basic Law, which provided constitution-like legal guarantees for Palestinian civil rights. Arafat set into motion far reaching fiscal and administrative reforms. He agreed to the appointment of an empowered minister of finance, Salam Fayad, who has introduced a transparent financial process that includes making the budget and all other financial transactions available to the public in the press and on the internet. Finally, in an unprecedented move for the Arab region, Arafat agreed to the establishment of a prime minister, conceded important powers to him and agreed that the Palestinian parliament (and not the office of the president) has the power to vote for or against confidence in the premier and his cabinet.

During every Christmas season, people the world over repeat what the angels said to shepherds in the Palestinian town of Bethlehem. Peace on Earth and Goodwill to all people. There is a clear connection between the success of peace and the need to plant the seeds of goodwill. If our prayers and those of the rest of the world, is for the US-led peace efforts to be successful, much more concrete acts of goodwill are needed to get the Palestinian public to embrace the process rather than continue in the present apathetic atmosphere towards it.

Much has been said of late as to the reason for the internal Palestinian conflict, especially the struggle between Arafat and Abu Mazen. While personality issues should not be discounted from any political struggle, one has to look much deeper in order to understand what lies behind it.

The internal Palestinian conflict has erupted as a result of different readings of the international and Arab political map as well as the realities of Palestinian life. A positive reading of where the international community stands visa vis Palestinian demands would naturally lead to a more stubborn Palestinian position. However, the realization of the weakness of international support towards Palestinians would lead to a much more flexible position. The same applies to how one reads the Palestinian public’s exhaustion factor. These issues reflect on the abilities of Palestinian negotiators to make demands regarding day-to-day issues like the release of prisoners, checkpoints and improving lives of Palestinians.

In these areas there is definitely some major differences between the views of the President and the Prime Minister. Normally such differences can be easily justified and explained based on their differing positions. A president should be thinking in larger and long term visions while the prime minister must deal with current day political issues and pressures. Politics being the art of the possible would apply more to the prime minister’s portfolio than that of the president.

But in the current context, a much more troublesome difference seems to be behind the internal conflict. Roughly speaking it has to do with the way the two leaders evaluate where the Palestinian issue is in terms of local and international circles. In this context won has to answer a simple question. Who has emerged as the victor in the Al Aqsa Intifada? While there might be no black and white answer to this question, attempting to answer it can be of extreme help in deciding negotiating strategy and better understanding the dilemma facing Abu Mazen.

A number of Abu Mazen’s hard-line opponents within the Fatah Central Committee are claiming that the prime minister is a defeated leader. They note his criticisms of the militarization of the intifada as proof that he had conceded on the Palestinian uprising even before the hudna was formally declared. Abu Mazen’s supporters reject these accusations noting that his criticism was simply against the form that the intifada has taken (the military one) which has weakened rather than strengthened the Palestinian position within Israel and throughout the world. They insist that Abu Mazen’s negotiating posture is reflective of a realistic approach rather than the pie in the sky approach which has repeatedly proven to be detrimental to Palestinian aspirations. They point to the way Palestinians have always made unattainable demands based on a mistaken reading of the political balance of forces and then after some time what was rejected becomes a new demand but again the balance of forces would be different and therefore the new demand will not be reached.

Back to the question of the winners and losers of the intifada? There is no doubt that Palestinians were badly bruised during the past two and a half years. The Palestinian economy is in ruins, the infrastructure in shambles and people’s faith in the leadership and in the eventuality of peace have been dealt a bad blow. The hard work of erasing the terrorism image of the 70s has been wasted as that image has returned to haunt Palestinians. And the Israelis have not ended their occupation of Palestinian lands. But for better or worse Palestinians have not surrender, they have not thrown the towel and despite hurting all over, they remain standing when the latest round ended.

Israelis are also bruised, their economy is also hurt (not as much as the Palestinian) and their confidence in peace is still rather low. The powerful Israeli military machine has not won the battle on the ground as Israeli soldiers, settlers and civilians have continued to be killed and injured. While Israel can’t claim to have won the battle they have also not lost either. Some would call the result a draw. To be honest I would say that Palestinians have lost the latest round in points rather than a knockout, which means that they still have a chance to regroup themselves. This means that national unity must be preserved at all costs. Palestinians must be careful not to fall in the trap of a civil war or a leadership struggle while at the same time trying to agree on an honest evaluation of what is possible in the current political landscape.

The recent positive changes on the Palestinian-Israeli front promise the beginnings of a political process that will lead, if President Bush means his words, to a viable Palestinian state in 2005. Clearly the region has lately made an important shift, which requires a review of the past two-and-a-half years. We must learn the lessons of the past and make appropriate adjustments.

Palestinians and Israelis have both failed in the attempt to use violence to change the political position of the other side. Israelis have hung on despite attacks on their soldiers, settlers and civilians. Palestinians have also hung on despite thousands of their citizens killed and injured massive punishment to their entire community, house demolitions, travel restrictions, destruction of their infrastructure and demolition of any semblance of an economy.

Both sides have come out of this conflict exhausted and ready for a political agreement. Since neither side has capitulated they are unlikely to do so during negotiations.

The agreement of the radical Palestinian groups, especially the Islamic ones, on a hudna (truce) is possibly the single most significant act of the past few years. By agreeing voluntarily to lay down their arms, even for a short period of time, they have admitted the futility of their actions and the impossibility of accomplishing victory (whether they define victory as Israeli withdrawal from the West bank and Gaza or the collapse of the state of Israel) using violent means.

Israel under the leadership of its most hawkish prime minister has also admitted defeat by accepting the negotiations track. For over two years, Ariel Sharon has insisted that Palestinians must stop their attacks first and a period of considerable period of calm pass before they agree to conduct any negotiations with Palestinians. This has not happened. Israeli-Palestinian talks have occurred even before this latest truce was agreed upon.

Possibly the one Israel victory has come in the form of the attempt at weakening the powers of the Palestinian president Yasser Arafat. In this, the Israeli demands, were adopted by the US and many in the world community and they were translated in a compromise acceptable to Palestinians, namely the creation of the post of prime minister. But as a result of strong Palestinian popular support, the clearly weakened Arafat, has not surrendered and looks likely to succeed in the long run, outmaneuvering all those who tried to get rid of him.

Hopefully Palestinians and Israelis have learned much more than the limits of sheer violence and brute power. They have learned that neither side is going to leave the Holy Land and therefore both peoples are destined to find a way to live with, or rather next to each other rather than instead of each other.

These important lessons might not be translated into a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement very quickly. Unfortunately, much more time and effort will be required before a political deal is found.

Many in the region and outside believe that the understanding between both sides had reached at the last session of negotiations held in Taba in January 2001 can be the basis for a permanent peace deal.

That agreement adopted dealt successfully with the two outstanding issues in previous talks. Namely Jerusalem and refugees. The agreement adopted the Clinton suggestion for solving the thorny issue of Jerusalem. Namely, Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty and Jewish ones under Israeli sovereignty with the Harm al Sharif under Palestinian control while the Western wall be in the hands of the Israelis. On the refugee issue, a complicated plan was agreed upon that would allow for some Palestinian refugees (with priority to those in Lebanon) to be allowed to return to Israel while the rest having the right to return to the Palestinian state or become full citizens of the countries they are presently in.

The failure of the Israeli violent and administrative repression as well as the Palestinian violent attacks should be a clear lesson to all that this conflict will not be solved in military ways. Opponents to peace might still try and dabble with violence. But if the lessons of the past are properly learnt then leaders of each side must take a firm stand against naughty members of their own. Rouge elements unhappy with the peace process will try and attacks an Israeli here, or try and build a settlement there. Elements within the Israeli army itself might carry out an assassination here or deal softly with an a trigger happy soldier there. If the leaders are truly committed to peace and to their own undertaking hey should not allow these elements to get away with their actions.

The peace train is finally back on track and people of goodwill on all sides must do their best not to allow any person or group or themselves to derail it. The majority of Israelis and Palestinians want the road map to peace to succeed. They and not minority elements should succeed. Only then would we learn the lessons of the horrible past few years.