US President George Bush tickled the fancy of lovers of democracy the world over when he focused his inaugural address in Washington on the priority of fighting tyranny and standing up for the rights of people to liberty and freedom. While it is obvious that Bush will pursue this policy in regards to countries like North Korea and Iran, it is still an open question whether this will be the US policy in pro-US countries. In the world at large, and in the Arab world in specific, there are many who doubt the sincerity of Bush when it comes to his administration’s position regarding the human rights and other rights that people living under the rule of some of America’s allies.

Naturally, the first place that cynics will point to is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. How can Bush be serious about the liberty of people and the fight against tyranny and not include first and foremost in this crusade the rights of Palestinians to live in freedom and to be liberated from the yoke of a brutal foreign military occupation. For a while, Bush and his ally in Israel, Ariel Sharon, were able to wiggle out of this cry for freedom by pinning the problem on Yasser Arafat. Now as a result of divine intervention, this excuse is buried, and a freely democratically elected president has assumed leadership. Furthermore, this new elected president has pushed all the right buttons. He said the right things and followed his words by actions. To his credit, President Bush has acknowledged the democratic election of Mahmoud Abbas and his commitment to fighting violence. The fight for the liberty of the Palestinians, however, will not be satisfied by an invitation for Abbas to the White House. Palestinians are expecting and looking for real and concrete action that will fulfill the new promises of Bush, namely to free people who are suffering from tyranny.

While the tyranny of foreign occupation is the worst kind of tyranny, Arabs are also cynical when it comes to the seriousness of the Bush administration in fighting for the liberty of those oppressed by their own rulers. How will the United States react to individuals in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. The two-year imprisonment of an Egyptian-American human rights activist is still fresh in the minds of freedom fighters and activists in Arab NGOs and civil society movements. American officials have said that the case of Saad Eddin Ibrahim will never be repeated, that the US government will not sit idly by as one of its citizens rots in jail solely because of his championing of human rights, freedom and liberty.

The case of Ibrahim might not be repeated, but the true test of democracy is not standing up for someone who supports you, but in defending the rights of all individuals including those whose opinions you might abhor.

The freedom of expression of individuals, a major tenet in any drive for freedom and liberty is not very well respected in the Arab world, will the second term Bush stand up to the rights of individuals to speak freely? Will he fight for truly free media in the Arab world? Can we as journalists sleep well at night knowing that there will not be a knock on the door or an “invitation for coffee” at the local intelligence service, followed by an imprisonment or even worse things?

Of course Bush and his advisers were clever enough to leave themselves an escape valve when the second term American president said that every country will have to customize democracy based on its own ways. This might be necessary, but there is no doubt what the basic tenets of democracy in any society.

When speaking on this issue Bush also spoke about Western values. Many are concerned that what is really behind this drive is not Western values of democracy and human rights but rather Western interests camouflaged nicely with talk about liberty and fighting tyranny? We have four years to get a good answer to this question.

I participated in the Palestinian presidential elections very early on Jan. 9. I drove to the village of Anata just outside the municipal borders of Jerusalem, showed them my ID card, got my right hand thumb inked and was given a ballot which I used to cast my vote.

The ink, which some claimed could be easily removed, has stayed on my thumb for a week. Not that it bothered me. Instead, I used it as a badge of honour, showing it off to relatives and friends in Amman and even in Beirut.



I believe that Jan. 9 will be as important for the Palestinians as Sept. 11 was for Americans. It will be remembered as the date which has legally and popularly ushered in a new political era for Palestinians.



The results Mahmoud Abbas accomplished (both in votes received and turnout) confirm his important political role in the post-Arafat era.



Palestinians have been hailing this date as a festival of democracy.



Many praised the tenacity and persistence of the many Palestinians insisting on voting despite the occupation and the checkpoints (in spite of the false claims by Israel that it would ease restrictions). While visiting Lebanon this week, I met with Talal Salman, the editor of the left-wing daily As-Safir. I found him, like many other Arabs, to be very impressed with how Palestinians handled themselves during the elections.



Abu Mazen’s era will clearly be a challenging one. I was impressed by his statement during the victory speech, in which he said that the small jihad is over and now the greater jihad is upon us. I was waiting to see if Fox TV or William Safire will pounce on Abu Mazen without even knowing what is meant by this statement. In Islam, the smaller jihad is the military jihad against the enemies of God, while the greater jihad (or struggle) is the internal jihad. By running and winning the elections on a platform of non violence and against military acts, Abu Mazen has, in his own eyes, overcome the smaller jihad and has promoted himself to the much more difficult, greater, jihad. It is the difficult soul searching in which you have to struggle with yourself.



I am sure that the greater jihad for Abu Mazen will mean having to decide in favour of the greater interest of the Palestinian people. That decision could come sooner than many people think. Abbas’ next steps will be to secure a firm ceasefire agreement, which for the Palestinians will mean a stoppage of attacks against Israelis.



There are at least two things in favour of Abu Mazen’s efforts to produce an effective quiet from the Islamists. His strong victory on a high turnout has made it clear that the vast majority of Palestinians support his political platform. It is very important to note that during the election campaign Abbas refused to back down on his demands for an end to the militarisation of the Intifada, and refused to apologise for his criticism of the rocket attacks. Noticing the high turnout and the strong mandate that he got, some of the Islamic leaders began publicly casting doubt on the validity of the elections. But a senior Hamas leader, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, rejected these calls by saying on television that Hamas respects the results of the elections and the will of the Palestinian people.



Another item in favour of Abu Mazen is the carrot of the legislative elections. The elections for the next Palestinian parliament, now scheduled for July, is very attractive to the Islamic groups, especially Hamas. They have already encouraged all their supporters to register and did reasonably well in the first leg of the local elections. The result of these elections has whetted their political appetite and they seem poised to participate in full force in the elections this summer.



Many things can happen between now and July, and they are not all within the abilities of the Palestinian leadership. Provocations in the form of further Israeli assassinations or incursions can easily turn a period of quiet on the part of the Palestinians into violence. Splinter groups might also want to mess up any understanding reached between Abu Mazen and the Islamic groups. While these groups might go along with Abbas in talking about a ceasefire, it might take a long time before they officially commit themselves.



A deadline for clear answers will most probably be demanded by Abu Mazen and his aides negotiating with the Islamic groups. The tolerance level will certainly be close to zero after such a date elapses.



If Abu Mazen’s efforts at producing a reasonable period of quiet begins to fail, this will be the time that his inner soul will be challenged.



Will he be able to stay neutral if the Islamic and radical militants violate understandings or will he find enough inner strength (the greater jihad) to do what is in the supreme interest of the Palestinian people, even if it means having to be tough with the militants?

Victory for Mahmoud Abbas in the Palestinian presidential elections will pose a huge challenge to the Palestinian leadership.



By being voted chairman of the PLO executive committee hours after Yasser Arafat’s death, Abbas clinched the support of the organization that represents all Palestinians, including the diaspora.



The Popular election as president of the Palestinian National Authority give him the grassroots legitimacy to carry out his political program.



That program, while similar to Arafat’s, differs in key ways.



Abbas has been publicly and consistently critical of what he calls the "militarization of the intifada". Even before Arafat’s death, he argued that the use of force by militants weakened the Palestinian negotiating position.



He stuck to that position throughout his electoral campaign, in defiance of hard-line Palestinian factions.



The business-like Abbas supports the rule of law and the need for civilian governance to assume pre-eminence in Palestinian politics. In this he also differs from Arafat, who said the revolutionary mindset had to continue as long as Palestinians lived under an illegal foreign occupation. Until liberation, there could be no business as usual.

If elected on an anti-violence, rule-of-law platform, Abbas will have the mandate and the responsibility to carry out this policy. He must make it clear to every armed Palestinian that there will be no tolerance of any unofficial group carrying arms or conducting military attacks from Palestinian territory.

To preserve national unity, Abbas will need to use all his persuasive skills to convince radical groups (including some in his own Fatah movement) to respect that approach.

As chairman of the PLO, he will be under extreme pressure not to delegitimize the internationally sanctioned acts of resistance to Israeli military targets. In order to counter that pressure, he will have to show that a cessation of violence is in the higher interest of Palestinians.



Abbas will find it equally challenging to apply rule-of-law principles to a traumatized community that is reeling after nearly five years of violence, oppression and draconian travel restrictions imposed by the Israelis.

This is not a simple matter, as it concerns forces outside the control of any Palestinian government. Nevertheless, internal policies will be of grave importance. The day-to-day lives and livelihoods of Palestinians need immediate improvement. Israel’s West Bank barrier means Palestinian unemployment will continue to rise and living standards will continue to fall.



To counter this, Abbas will have to seek external Arab and international support.

The real need is to encourage investment, primarily from Palestinians and Arabs, but that is unlikely without legal and administrative reforms, and, more generally, good governance and ironclad application of the rule of law.

The key to establishing civil order is peace, and no matter how persuasive Abbas is in convincing radical groups to lay down their arms, a ceasefire will not last long if it is unilateral.



The role of the Israeli occupation forces will be crucial in determining the success of Abbas’s daunting mission. Indeed, the task he faces will become impossible if the Israeli policy of targeted killings is allowed to continue while Palestinian leaders are working seriously to put an end to acts of violence.

Ultimately, the main agenda for the new Palestinian president in negotiations with Israel will be to push it to make good on repeated international assurances that a viable, contiguous Palestinian state is a realistic goal in the near future.



If left to Israelis and Palestinians alone, the goal of independence within the 1967 borders of Palestine will most likely remain out of reach. The international community, led by the US, must invest effort and political capital to realize this goal.

The new Palestinian president faces a challenging agenda and high popular expectations. Much will depend on how he handles himself and how he governs.



The ultimate question is what Israel and the international community will do if he fulfils his pledge to end the violence and apply the rule of law in a functioning democracy. If the Palestinians choose that path, the world must do so as well.

I left Amman very early to get to Ramallah for some work and a few interviews. My parents in law also wanted to go to Palestine and stay in Jericho. We left Amman at 7:30 and things went smoothly. My father in law, Odeh a Jordanian who lived many years in Jerusalem has a special love for Palestinians who he says are energetic and have an entrepreneurship spirit compared to many Jordanians who he says are lazy.

Crossing the bridge was easy and by 11am I was in my office in Amman showing off to everyone that was interested, my ink covered thumb proving that I indeed participated in the elections.

The invitation I received from the US embassy was very simple. You are invited to coffee with Senator John Kerry. I looked at the invitation twice to be sure that the name was correct. I was invited to meet with the former presidential candidate.

As we left, I walked privately with the senator and I expressed our unhappiness that he didn’t win the elections. He responded to me with what appeared to be a genuinely honest answer, I really think I could have brought peace to the region.