The determined decision by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to go through with his plans to withdraw from the Gaza Strip mandates a second look at the concept of "unilateral."



Unilateralism has properly been painted in a negative light. Negotiations between enemies should lead the way out of conflict. However, if either  party refuses to negotiate, as the position of Israel has been, other options must be explored.



At times when leaders are stubborn and the issues seem intractable, a political argument for short-term relief through unilateralism can certainly be made. And if unilateralism is the flavor of the month, it is necessary to look at how the Palestinians should respond.



While seeking a bilateral agreement should continue to be the priority of leaders, one unilateral act certainly provokes another. If the Israelis refuse to negotiate and choose to act alone, the only short-term option left to the Palestinians is unilateralism.



Palestinians have tried unilateral acts before. More than once during the past three years both Yasser Arafat, the president of the Palestinian Authority, as well as the leaders of Islamic militant groups, have made efforts to break the cycle of violence by declaring a unilateral cease-fire.



Unfortunately, and despite the passage of weeks without a violent Palestinian act, the Israeli response was very violent. The assassinations of a Fatah leader in Tulkarm and a Hamas leader in Gaza ended Palestinian unilateral acts.



The past few weeks have seen another attempt by the Palestinians to unilaterally end the violence. This time the act was carried out without a public announcement. But this is clearly not enough.

And while it is not fair to expect symmetrical political action from the occupier and the occupied, Palestinian leaders cannot idly sit by. What is desperately needed is for the Palestinian Authority to try and carry out additional political acts that can help jump-start real bilateral negotiations.



THE POSSIBILITIES of what the Palestinians can do are obvious. Peace initiatives by Palestinians like Yasser Abed Rabbo (a signatory of the Geneva Accords) and Sari Nusseibeh (who together with Ami Ayalon head The People’s Voice campaign) have already received informal support from the Palestinian leadership.



President Arafat has refrained from expressing full formal support so as not to commit himself before talks actually begin. But with the Israelis agreeing to quit Gaza and some of the settlements in the northern West Bank, the time might be right for more formal support of one or both of these peace initiatives.



The Palestinian leadership can also think of other creative ways to remain in the limelight. There are a variety of political options. For example, it can try to bring Jordan into the political process. The access of Jordan’s King Abdullah to the White House, as seen recently in the G8 summit, shows that the Palestinians can advance their cause by making use of the good offices of some of Palestine’s neighbors.



Previous attempts to delegate sovereign powers to other parties have been opposed by both the Palestinian leadership and delegates to the PLO’s highest ruling body, the Palestine National Council.



Much of the worry stemmed from the fact that in the past the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan had annexed the West Bank. This strained relations between Palestinians and the late King Hussein. However, it should not be a source of worry for the young King Abdullah, who has clearly shown that he and his government have absolutely no interest in regaining Jordanian sovereignty in the Palestinian areas.



One idea for unilateral Palestinian acts can be some kind of joint action with Palestine’s Arab neighbors. The joint Palestinian-Jordanian committee, established during the Madrid peace process, did not cause any harm to the Palestinian quest for independence. This formula, or something like it, can help get the Palestinian cause back to a more central track.



With a strong partner such as Jordan’s King Abdullah, Palestinians can expect stronger results with the US and Israeli public. It can also provide a political mechanism to help move the real bilateral peace talks back to center stage.



Palestinians and Israelis are hurting more than most people realize. Their respective political leaders are obliged to find both short- and long-term solutions to ease the pain that occurs every day. Bilateral talks aimed at ending the Israeli occupation and promoting the creation of an independent Palestinian state are certainly the best and fastest way ahead.



Short of that, with the Israelis refusing to talk and opting to act unilaterally, not doing anything is simply not an option. The Palestinian leadership must not limit its actions to only reacting to what others say and do.



It is high time for a proactive Palestinian position.

The persistent decision by the Israeli leader Ariel Sharon to go through with his plans to withdraw from the Gaza Strip dictates that a second look at the concept of unilateralism.

Unilateralism has properly been painted negatively. Negotiations even between enemies have been and should be the way out of conflict. Nevertheless, if either of the parties refuses to negotiate, as the position of Israel has been, other options must be found.

Politically and at times when leaders are stubborn and the issues seem intractable, an argument for short term relief through unilateralism can certainly be made. And if unilateralism is the flavor of the day, what should the response of Palestinians be.

While seeking a bilateral agreement should continue to be the priority of leaders, one unilateral act no doubt provokes another. If the Israelis refuse to negotiate and choose to act alone, the only short term option left to the Palestinians is unilateralism.

Palestinians have tried unilateral acts. More than once during the past three years, Yaser Arafat the president of the Palestinian Authority as well as the leaders of the Islamic militant groups have made more than one effort to break up the cycle of violence by declaring a unilateral cease fire. Unfortunately on both occasions and despite the passage of weeks without an Palestinian violent act, the Israeli response was very violent. The assassinations of a Fatah leader in Tulkarem and a Hamas leader in Gaza, ended both unilateral acts.

The past few weeks have seen another Palestinian attempt at unilaterally ending the violence, this time an act carried out without any public announcement. But this is clearly not enough. And while it is not fair to expect symmetry from the occupier and the occupied Palestinian leaders can’t sit idly by. What is badly needed is for the Palestinian Authority to try and carry out some more political acts that can help kick start real bilateral negotiations.

The possibilities of what the Palestinians can do are obvious. The peace initiatives of Palestinians like Yaser Abed Rabo (co signatory of the Geneva Plan) and Sari Nusseibeh (co signatory of the people’s voice) have already received informal support from the Palestinian leadership. President Arafat has refrained from full formal support so as not to commit himself before the talks begin. But with the Israelis agreeing to quit Gaza and some of the settlements in the north of the West Bank, the time might be right for a more formal support to one or both of these peace initiatives.

The Palestinian leadership can also think of other more creative ways of staying in the lime light with a variety of political options. It can try and bring Jordan in the political process. The access that Jordan’s King has to the White House, as seen recently in the G8 summit shows that the Palestinian cause can be advanced by making use of the good offices of some of Palestine’s neighbors.

Previous attempts to delegate sovereign powers to other parties have been opposed by the Palestinian leadership and delegates to the PLO’s highest ruling body the Palestine National Council. Much of the worry stemmed from the fact that the Hashmite Kingdom of Jordan had annexed the West Bank to it. This was a cause of a lot of differences between Palestinians and the late King Hussein. This should not be a source of worry with the new young King Abdullah who has clearly shown that he and his governments have absolutely no interest in regaining sovereignty for Jordan in the Palestinian areas.

One idea for unilateral Palestinian acts could be some kind of joint actions with Palestine’s Arab neighbors. The joint Palestinian-Jordanian committee which was established during the Madrid peace process didn’t cause any harm to the Palestinian quest for independence. This formula or something like it could help get the Palestinian cause back to the centrality it needs to have. With a strong partner such as Jordan’s King, Palestinians can expect much stronger results with the US and Israeli public. It can also provide a political mechanism to help move the real bilateral peace talks back to center stage.

Palestinians and Israelis are hurting more than most people realize. Political leaders are obliged to find short and long term solutions to ease the pain that is happening every single day. Bilateral talks aimed at ending the Israeli occupation and the creation of an independent Palestinian state is certainly the best and fastest way ahead. Short of that and with the Israelis refusing to talk and opting to act unilaterally, not doing anything is not an option. The Palestinian leadership must not restrict their actions to reacting to what others say and do. It is high time for a pro active Palestinian position

As a regular traveler across the Jordan River crossings, I feel bound to inform the rest of the world which rarely makes this dreadful journey of what happens to thousands of Palestinians who have no choice except to make this short but difficult trip.

The King Hussein Bridge, which constitutes the shortest distance between Amman and Jerusalem, is quickly becoming the all-day difficult affair it used to be in the 1970s and 80s.

Until the Oslo agreement was signed, crossing the bridge was such an ordeal it became part of the Palestinian lore, with travelers dreading the day they had to cross the bridge. In the late summer, as most visitors to Palestine would be returning, the lines of cars in Jericho would stretch for miles, often making travelers sleep overnight in their cars just to get out. The bigger problem has always been the return trip. Travelers intending to enter the Israeli-controlled area would normally leave early in the morning and not expect to get into their West Bank home till late at night. All travelers would have every piece of their clothes checked, their shoes taken away and returned later and would spend hour after hour waiting in the buses or in the passport control and security search halls. Young men or people who were seen as suspicious would be called into a special room where every document in their possession would be reviewed and long questioning by an Israeli security agent would take place.

All this changed when the Palestinian National Authority was established. As part of the Oslo accords, Palestinian police were permanently established at the bridge, security was done through a security belt and except for security cases, and Israeli security officials were asked to stay inconspicuous. The bridge was open 24 hours a day, spreading out the volume of passengers and giving them the possibility of traveling in the cooler evening hours. A Palestinian flag was raised and a permanent office for the Palestinian police was created at the bridge, allowing the PNA official present to defend the people and plead their case if the travel situation became unbearable.

Once the current Intifada broke out, most of these improvements were cancelled on a gradual basis. First, the Palestinian police was removed from the bridge and the hours kept on getting reduced, leaving the bridge open between 8:00am and 3:00pm. The first few years of the Intifada, the volume of passengers was light and therefore congestion was not a problem. Slowly, however, the jams increased, the Israeli soldiers and security officials and their delays started making the crossing the old misery it was before the Oslo agreement was signed.

Without the Palestinian police at the bridge and with the breakdown of the negotiations, no one was left to plead the case of travelers. A special business quickly developed on the side. Israeli and Jordanian businessmen decided that they could profit from this problem by creating a special VIP service. At first, they charged JD10 per passenger crossing the three-kilometer strip; in time, the price went higher and higher. At difficult times, the price reached over $100 per person. Passengers using this special service were bankers and government officials who didn’t have to pay for the money from their pockets. And as long as the politicians didn’t have to wait in line with the public, the issue was ignored.

This week, I made the Amman-Jerusalem trip. I left Amman at 8:00am and was not in Jerusalem until 4:30. In the taxi traveling with me after finishing all the arrangements was a Jerusalem woman who had decided to use the VIP service. She paid $70 for the shuttle between the bridges. She told me that she had left Amman at 1:00pm.

In the publicized Sharon plan which deals extensively with the future of the situation in Gaza and the borders, a clause mentions the situation of the Jordan River crossing, stating that the hours and conditions of the Jordan River crossing would not change. Why should it, when so many “VIPs” are spared the pain and suffering of the men, women, children and the elderly who have to endure long hours in the scorching sun in order to make the trip home?

As the summer approaches, Palestinians and Israelis, as well as Jordanians and Egyptians, are likely to be involved in many political discussions and negotiations, whether directly or indirectly. When these talks get heated up, the negotiators must take a minute to remember the tens of thousands of Palestinians who will be waiting patiently in buses and in halls as the Israelis single-handedly and slowly administer the bridge crossing. The situation of the crossing points from Jordan and Egypt, as well as within the Palestinian areas, deserve some attention.