2003 was not just the year that the statue and person of Saddam Hussein fell. A number of long held ideological issues relating to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict also came crumbling down. This ideological climb down, however was not symmetric in any way.



For Palestinians this was the year that the issue of the right of return was opened up for discussion with the majority of Palestinians indicating one way or another that serious compromise on this issue is possible. For Israelis, and especially right wing Israelis this was the year that the Zionist ideology of unlimited land expansion and settlement activity began to be reversed with Ariel Sharon agreeing on the uprooting of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories.



Palestinian refugees decade-long demand of returning to their lands and homes as enshrined in UN Resolution 194 was dealt two major blows this year. Peace proposals signed by patriotic Palestinian leaders and supported publicly by important community representatives shifted the ultimate destination of those refugees expelled from lands and homes, which are now the state of Israel to areas in the proposed new Palestinian state. These political proposals were strengthened by a groundbreaking public opinion poll of Palestinian refugees themselves who said overwhelmingly that their idea of a return doesn’t include the return to Israel but to Palestine , wherever the borders of the Palestine will be.



This clear Palestinian compromise was reached without any serious quid pro quo. Sure the People’s Voice Document and the Geneva Accords are written as a package deal in which this Palestinian compromise is part of a deal that includes an independent Palestinian state basically within the pre 1967 borders of what was then part of Jordan controlled West Bank as well as the Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip. But in real terms it is highly unlikely that any future Israeli negotiator will accept verbatim these accords or the visions within them. The right wing government of Ariel Sharon will certainly claim that they have been opposed to these peace initiatives from day one, while the Palestinian leadership which has not officially endorsed them will have a harder time beginning the talks with anything more than what is included in these ideas which the PA has indirectly supported.



Even though the Israeli concessions regarding uprooting settlements are coupled with a, vigorous land grab and possible future annexation, one should not belittle the power of the recent decision by the hard line Likud leader. Sharon ‘s statement in Herzilya, and before that the statement of his deputy Ehud Olmert, point to a major ideological shift in the most ideological Israeli movement. This shift includes a tacit agreement to stop settlement building and a willingness to uproot existing ones. The ideological importance of this decision should not be minimized. It signifies the first time in modern history of the conflict in which a major Zionist party has stopped, what for Palestinians has been the single most fatal problem to their national goal, loss of land due to exclusive Jewish settlement activities.



For better or worse, there is no doubt that the move towards Palestinians and Israelis reversing their long held ideological positions is a direct result of the three-year Palestinian intifada. And without equating the fairness or the justice of either move, this has happened because both people are convinced that it will be impossible to return to Israel or to keep the settlements. But we are still not there. Israel has not given up on all settlements built on Palestinian lands occupied in 1967, nor has the issue of Palestinian refugees been pushed aside from the political map. Palestinians passionately believe that this issue will not be solved until Israel admits political and moral responsibility for creating the Palestinian refugee problem in the first place.



Furthermore, a number of other issues still are looming in the picture, among them, Jerusalem , borders, connectivity between Gaza and the West Bank as well as the economic relationship between the two states.



The recognition that both Palestinians and Israelis have made important ideological leaps could be a major turning point if enough good will is found to build on them. However, if these ideological shifts are not built on quickly and effectively, we will find ourselves in the same situation that we did seven years after Oslo , with nice political talk but no major decisions on the ground.

I first met Richard Gere about six months ago. I was scheduled to take him on a tour of Ramallah, when that same morning, the Israeli army unexpectedly declared curfew on the Palestinian city. To his credit and despite strong objection from his handlers and bodyguards, the American movie star insisted on going ahead with his plans to visit Ramallah.



Although he drove through a deserted city, he was quickly made to feel, when he got to the Grand Park Hotel and Hanan Ashrawi’s home, the love and appreciation Palestinians have for him, especially because he dared to challenge the Israeli-imposed restrictions. His visit, as expressed by the then minister of culture Ziad Abu Amer, gave the depressed Palestinians a sense of hope and the realization that there are many around the world who cared.



For many of the Palestinians who also challenged curfew that day, the mere presence of a Hollywood icon was a once-in-a-lifetime occasion. While genuinely appreciating it, most Palestinians thought then that this would be Gere’s first and last visit. After all, many other celebrities had made similar visits (although no one during a curfew) to never be heard of again.



It was in this spirit that Gere’s second visit early this December pleasantly surprised many. But despite the positive media coverage this second visit to Palestine had, at least one journalist mistakenly interpreted Gere’s decision not to speak as a sign of fear of being reprimanded by the powerful pro-Israel lobby in America. Of course this was not the case. Gere had taken the decision, during both his visits, to avoid saying anything to the press simply because he didn’t feel qualified. He had clearly stated to all he met that he was there to listen and that he was committed to being involved in this conflict for a long time.



After his first visit to Ramallah, East Jerusalem and Israel, Gere and his friends from the US-based Peace-maker Circle International (PCI) met in New York to evaluate the trip and plan his promised next trip. During a day-long meeting that included Palestinians, Israelis and Americans, various ideas were discussed, including Gere’s thoughts on a ground-breaking international event in Jerusalem some time in 2005.



One of the first issues that Gere was asked to comment on was whether he planned to take a stand on any specific political plan. He had met in Jerusalem with Palestinian philosopher and peace activist Sari Nusseibeh and in Tel Aviv with former Israeli security chief Ami Ayalon and was impressed with the People’s Voice document that the two had drawn up and which had been signed by tens of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians. Some of those attending cautioned Gere not to get involved in any specific political plan for the time being.



Gere’s real passion, however, is channeled towards how he and fellow celebrities could use their clout to make change. Specifically, he wanted to find a way to involve celebrities both from the West and the east in a major event in the region. He described his vision of seeing the Holy City of Jerusalem converted into a zone of peace where the light of hope and inspiration could be rekindled.



The various impediments to this idea were discussed openly and honestly. It was said, for example, that Arab artists and celebrities would not come to Jerusalem while it is still under Israeli control. Then, Palestinians from Gaza and the rest of the West Bank would not be allowed to come. Gere was not dissuaded, but willing to listen to various alternatives.



One suggestion was that the event be virtual, that is, reserving air time on major television stations and conducting simultaneous programs in different locations. Another was to have an alternative or parallel event in Jordan which, unlike Jerusalem, everyone can visit. All these ideas were put aside until Gere’s next visit to the region. He wanted to include Jordan in this visit, to meet members of the Royal family, connect with Arab artists and visit Jerash and Petra.



On Dec. 8, Gere arrived in Amman from India, where he had worked on a weeklong HIV/AIDS campaign. Gere, “ready to go”, also wanted to know what I and others thought of the Geneva initiative which had been announced a few days earlier.



Two days of intensive meetings followed, he visited the Citadel and the Amphitheatre in Amman and Jerash.



In Palestine his visit included meetings with leading Palestinian NGOs, parliamentarians, artists, nonviolence activists, businesspeople, and a group of young people. He also toured Al Aqsa Mosque and met with the director of the Islamic Waqf Adnan Husseini. Hanan Ashrawi, director of Miftah, and Sami Awad, director of the Holy Land Trust, hosted Gere in Ramallah and Bethlehem respectively.



Throughout his trips, Gere repeatedly said that he was there to listen and learn. His focus on the conflict and his intense desire to understand all the nuances and points of view, including those of the radicals on both sides, were impressive. Gere feels passionately about the role that he and other celebrities can play to change hearts and minds. He is well aware of the fact that celebrities can open doors previously bolted shut and bring people together who would never meet otherwise.



While touring the region with Gere, I was impressed by his intellect, his humility and his passion. The talk he gave to nearly one hundred Palestinian youth in Bethlehem was inspiring and empowering. Of course, Gere understands he can’t do everything himself. He is committed to supporting the people and causes of this region and plans to make many more visits. He is working with his long-time partner and friend Bernie Glassman, president of PCI. Glassman’s PCI, which operates in Europe, Asia and Latin America, has opened a Middle East hub office in Amman. PCI plans to train Palestinians and Jordanians in the techniques of nonviolent cooperation and community work. A workshop to train the trainers in the circle methodology opened in Amman on Dec. 13.



He clearly understands the power that his celebrity status has and uses it to try and make the world a better place to live in.

There is no doubt that the arrest of the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein marks an important turning point for Iraq and the American led occupation of this strategic Arab country. But the question that needs to be answered is how will this important event affect the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.



For sure many Palestinians have invested for better or worse placed over the years a lot of emotional mileage on this one man. Living in a depressive and oppressive state for so long where the balance of forces is clearly not in their favor, Palestinians have always looked outside for help in shifting this balance. They tried the Soviet Union, they tried the UN and it failed, they placed their hopes in various Arab leaders all to no avail until Saddam Hussein appeared on stage. He said the right words, his country a rich and strategically powerful country had stood by Palestinians since 1948 with troops. Iraq provided free higher education for Palestinians and gave housing and social privileges to Palestinians living in Iraq. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, many hailed this move as a possible contributor to the shake up of the Arab leaders, especially in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia in order to get them to genuinely help the Palestinians. And when Saddam made true on his threats to attack Israel, he was quickly applauded as the first Arab leader who didn’t restrict his support with lip service.



When Al Aqsa intifada began, the Iraqi leader continued supporting Palestinians despite the siege and economic deprivation that his country was facing from the US and the world community. Representatives of the Palestinian chapter of the Baath party were seen visiting the homes of Palestinians killed in the intifada and giving checks in the amount of $10,000 to the family of every Palestinian killed by Israelis (and not only to every suicide bomber as is mistakenly reported).



All this created an image of Saddam much larger than real life. No one wanted to believe that Baghdad fell to the Americans that easily. And when the resistance began to hurt the occupiers, the image of Saddam again grew in the minds of Palestinians who began to compare themselves and their resistance to Israel to the efforts of the Iraqi resistance against the American occupiers.



None of this blind support was logical. Most Palestinians realized that they had been duped. The scuds against Israel in 1991 while making a lot of noise caused little damage and almost no deaths (one Israeli woman died from a related cause). They could see that the five million strong Jerusalem army was not really intended to liberate Palestine. They were able to understand the level of suffering that he was causing to his own people and the corruption of his authority and its dictatorial ways. But a sinking Palestinian community wanted to clutch on any straw. And as in any courtship the emotion of love often blinds a person from all other facts, so was the adoration that Palestinians had for Saddam and therefore the frustration about what happened to him.



Outwardly many Palestinians tried to put a strong face. We are not so angry at what happened to him as we are angry at the Americans for what they did, was a sentiment many expressed. Others said that they wish that the fate of Saddam Hussein had been at the hands of his own people rather than at the hands of the occupiers. But the real sentiment was that of hurt and humiliation. When pushed most felt angry and betrayed at the way Saddam Hussein was arrested and portrayed on television with a young American medic combing his hair and opening his mouth for DNA samples. For Palestinians the issue of dignity is still a fundamental one. A friend of mine told me it reminded him of his feelings when the Israelis were attacking Arafat at the Muqata’a. I don’t like Arafat, he told me, but when the Israelis tried to humiliate him I wanted to go out in the streets in the defense of our president.



The trial of Saddam Hussein as a war criminal will be a good opportunity to demonstrate to many Arabs what the fate of those that oppress their own people.



But the more important fact is that Saddam Hussein’s arrest and detention undoubtedly ends a charade that has given false hope to many Palestinians that their salvation will come from the outside. It will no doubt double the effort for Palestinians to depend on themselves and the justice of their cause to ride of the occupation that has preoccupied this part of the world for too long.

The last minute confusion on the Palestinian side prior to the signing of the Geneva initiative has once again revealed a major weakness in the Palestinian political position. An absence of a political backbone.

Yaser Arafat, the Palestinian president is known to have been a major supporter of the initiative which has been spearheaded by former minister of information Yaser Abed Rabo, an Arafat confidant. As long as the public was not making any sounds, the Palestinian leadership, especially the Fatah central committee, was ok with the initiative placing pressure on the Israelis. But no sooner than the public pressure surfaced than the Palestinian leadership, especially in Fatah, publicly back tracked and withdrew any kind of political cover to those involved in the initiative.

To be fair, Palestinian skeptics have strong a long history of missed opportunities to go back to. A plethora of peace initiatives, agreements, and proposals have gone unfulfilled only to leave those publicly associated with them with egg on their face. Even political initiatives with the names of senior US officials like Mitchell, Tenent and Zinni, connected to them have ended up in the world’s political archives.

Nevertheless, the official Palestinian position, especially in the main stream Fatah leadership should not go without criticism. As member of the Palestinian legislative Council Hatem Abdel Qader said on the eve of the signing, we need a better idea of what the Palestinian strategy is. The Geneva Initiative has revealed a weakness on the Palestinian side to deal with some difficult issues. For example, Palestinian leaders are convinced that the issue of the right of return will not be implemented. Four million Palestinians who constitute the 1948 refugees and their dependants are simply not going to return to their homes and lands in Israel. This is not only a basic political reality, but an important recent poll conducted in countries surrounding Israel has revealed that less that 10% are actually willing to go back and live in Israel.

But the Palestinian leadership continues to refuse to deal head on with this issue and come clean with the Palestinian population. Hardliners say that this internationally guaranteed right should not be unilaterally compromised. They say that it might be considered as part of a package deal where they can trade it for some concrete results on the ground. Palestinian intellectual Sari Nusseibeh strongly dispute this argument. Professor Nusseibeh who courageously dealt with this issue long before the Geneva Initiative says that it makes no sense hold out on an issue that everyone, including your adversary already knows that you are willing to compromise. Instead, Nusseibeh, who co authored with former Israeli intelligence chief Ami Ayalon, the Peoples Voice says that the Palestinian leadership must be honest with its people. Nusseibeh, like the authors of the Geneva Initiative also disagree with the conventional wisdom that opts for a gradual approach to solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Instead of a road map to peace, that allows the public on both sides to place obstacles in the way, the new Palestinian thinkers want a plan that envisions the end goal. This way, they say, the public on both sides will know what the ultimate goal is, so that political leaders will not be susceptible to the negotiations bazaar where the powerful can dictate the final results of talks.

Whatever the tactic, the latest controversy over the Geneva Initiative reveal a leadership crisis in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. On both sides, leaders appear to be trying to reflect public opinion rather than mold it. This is especially true on the Palestinian side, were as a reflection of past failures, President Arafat and the leaders of the mainstream Fatah movement appear to choosing to please the Palestinian public rather than encourage them to rethink worn out political positions, tactics and strategies. Statesmen have to tell people what they need to hear and not what they want to hear. If our leaders can display such courage, and political backbone, the public at large will follow them. Until then, people-based initiatives such as those spearheaded by Palestinians like Yaser Abed Rabo and Sari Nusseibeh will continue to take front stage.