Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ political honeymoon is almost over. And the results are worrisome. Palestinians gave Arafat’s heir a huge boost in the January presidential elections in which he ran against a number of serious contenders. The victory was followed by a few more important accomplishments, including the tahdi’a (quiet) that all Palestinian factions (included the Islamists) agreed to and have honoured since.

Expectations among Palestinians were elevated even more with the Sharm El Sheikh summit in which the Israelis promised a number of steps matching the Palestinian security reform actions.

By all objective accounts, the Palestinian leader has made tremendous progress in the difficult and complicated tasks facing him. The security apparatus was overhauled in the spirit of the Egyptian-American ideas that resulted in the reduction of the security forces to three well defined and accountable departments: intelligence, police and national guard.

The new Palestinian minister of interior, Nasser Yousef (refused by Arafat this post), has proved to be a serious and professional internal security chief. Among his first decisions was the removal of most of the security chiefs who were responsible (directly or indirectly) for the state of chaos and the absence of the rule of law in Palestine. These changes have already been noticed as the Palestinian public has seen a drastic drop in cases of lawlessness and serious investigation in any new reports of individuals or security personnel taking the law in their own hands.

Abbas has also signed into law a number of important pieces of legislation, including one that has overhauled the entire Palestinian judicial system. Municipal elections have taken place and legislative elections are expected in July. Abbas has refused to compromise on the promises he made regarding the Cairo Agreement, with the other Palestinian factions, which he has articulated in public since. Control over the Palestinian Broadcasting Authority has been removed from the PLO and the office of the president and placed under the direction of moderate Nabil Shaath’s information Ministry. This week Shaath expelled a sheikh for a sermon that was transmitted on Palestinian TV.

One would expect that all these accomplishments would be matched by, at the minimum, an improvement in the daily lives of Palestinians. Israel continues to refuse to coordinate its prisoner releases; over 8,000 Palestinians are held in Israeli jails, many of them without trial or charge. Save for the redeployment in three Palestinian cities, the catastrophic closure imposed on the Palestinian cities in the West Bank is still valid. Palestinians are not allowed to travel from one West Bank town to another without a permit. Even those with permits in Bethlehem are still unable to drive their cars to Ramallah, or vice versa, and are forced to travel in shared public taxis.

Settlement activities continue, clearly in defiance of the roadmap whose tune all international leaders are singing day and night. Instead, a huge settlement is now being planned east of Jerusalem and a university has been declared in the illegally built Ariel settlement.

The Sharon government, not wanting to rescind its collective punishment (illegal according to the Fourth Geneva Convention) of Palestinians, is turning the tables on Abbas and blaming him for not doing enough vis-‎-vis the Islamic movements.

Ironically, Israeli officials are now talking to the newly elected Hamas mayors who they want Abbas to disarm. For the record, the US appointed Lieutenant General William Ward has had nothing but praise for the Palestinian leadership’s actions in dealing with the security issue. And if there is any doubt about the Palestinians’ commitment to their unilaterally issued ceasefire, some might need to be reminded of the calm that has been reigning for half a year now. The Israelis may be waiting for the Bush-Abbas meeting before acting, but the Palestinian population continues to suffer for no fault of its own.

World political and economic leaders meeting on the Dead Sea shores might need to take these issues into consideration while talking about the future of the region. The present quiet on the Palestinian side can’t be sustained without a serious reciprocal effort of the Israelis. All the money and good intentions in the world will do very little to move the peace process ahead while one party is occupying, humiliating and refusing the basic freedom to a people who yearn to live free from oppression and military control, on their own land.

The trials and tribulations of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem continue to attract the attention of Palestinians, Jordanians and Greeks alike.

The decision by more than two thirds of the Holy Synod of the Church to expel Patriarch Irineos I from his position is the first in the church’s 2,000 year history. No one knows what will happen now that the name of the patriarch has been struck out of the prayers of all the faithful throughout Jordan and Palestine and the synod has chosen a committee of three bishops to run the affairs of the church until a new patriarch is elected.

On the surface, the expulsion of the Greek patriarch by fellow Greek bishops came after an Israeli newspaper revealed that the patriarch had given power of attorney to one of his aides who then sold (or leased for a long term) for millions of dollars, major real estate belonging to the church in the Jaffa Gate area to a radical Jewish settler group.

In their three-page strongly worded statement of renunciation, the bishops refer to the land case in passing, but deal much more with a list of what they call transgressions by Irineos, including lying, deceit, defaming fellow priests, taking over the financial department of the church and complete lack of transparency. In one paragraph, the bishops call the man they had elected to the highest position as “having a sick mentality”.

The Orthodox Church, the mother of all Christian churches in the Holy Land, is a very strange entity. Palestinian Christians consider it the last bastion of religious colonialism in the Holy Land. While all the faithful are Arab, its entire senior clergy, including every single member of the synod, is made up of Greek citizens.

Church history talks about the last Arab Christian patriarch, Patriarch Atallah, having been replaced in 1492 by a sharp-tongued fund-raising Greek bishop who had disguised his nationality until being elected and then cleaned up the church of Arab bishops and imported in their place Greek nationals who have ruled the church ever since.

The unprecedented demise of the present patriarch had its own Greek connection. The present strongly secular government in Greece was unhappy with him and became furious when the land sale became known. It understood its implications both at the level of Christian-Muslim relations and at that of Greek-Palestinian relations.

The withdrawal of moral and, the more important, financial support to Irineos I followed by the protests, during the Easter holidays, of the Christian Arab community in Palestine, Israel and Jordan left most bishops with little choice but to withdraw their confidence in their leader.

Israel’s position vis-à-vis this patriarch, the Orthodox Church and Christians living under its control has never been easy. Most observers feel that the two-year delay by Israel to recognize the patriarch ended when he agreed to make a number of concessions to the Israelis. Many believe that the sale of the Jaffa Gate properties and slowing down the case regarding the Jewish settlers’ takeover of the St. John’s Convent, overlooking the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, was part of the deal that brought the Israeli recognition of the patriarch.

Ironically, it seems to have also brought him down. Many Greek priests are also are under strict control, as Israel doesn’t provide permanent visas to many of them, often allowing them in the country as tourists. The reluctance to provide clergy visas is, however, not limited to the Orthodox denomination. Other clergy has regularly complained about the Israeli authorities’ policy to reduce the number of clergy visas even though Jerusalem is the cradle of Christianity.

Reverend Alex Awad, pastor of the East Jerusalem Baptist Church, and his wife Brenda complained this week that they have been on a tourist visa for the past 16 months, often having to leave the country and return every three months so as not to overstay their visa. Local Christians have also complained that Israel rarely gives them permission to go to the holy places in Jerusalem. During the recent Easter holidays, Christians were given a one-day pass only. Some were even turned back because the Israelis feared that Orthodox Palestinians will protest that Irineos I presides over the religious festivities.

Nevertheless, the local Christian Orthodox community has naturally been revitalized by this case. The leading Arab clergyman who will most likely become a bishop (now that he reached the age of 40) is Archimandrite Atallah Hanna; he has become a local hero, appearing in the local and Arab satellite media on almost daily basis.

Jordan and, to a lesser degree, the Palestinian Authority, are directly responsible for the legal recognition of the church’s hierarchy. According to the 1958 Jordanian Law, the patriarch must be a Jordanian citizen and must be able to read, write and speak Arabic. The same law also stipulates that the synod should include Arab bishops and that a mixed council of Arab Orthodox lay people and church officials be formed to run the affairs of the church. Previous patriarchs have failed to elevate Arab bishops, leaving the synod to Greek monopoly.

The demand by the US Congress to divert $50 million of President George W. Bush’s $200-million pledge of aid to the Palestinian Authority for Israeli checkpoints is something like requiring the Vatican to contribute air-conditioners to abortion clinics or divorce lawyers’ fees as part of its policy of easing the plight of Catholic women.

The new motto of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is very simple and direct: "From the American People." Recent conditions tacked onto a planned US grant from the American people is adding insult to Palestinian injury.

Diverting to Israel millions from monies promised to the Palestinian Authority in order to reinforce Israeli checkposts deep inside Palestinian territories is a multiple insult to Palestinians. Not only is it a reduction from the meager (in comparison to the billions given to Israel) grant to Palestinians; but to divert money earmarked for Palestinians to strengthen the Israeli army’s occupation is a moral and political scandal.

Israeli checkpoints have been one of the most humiliating aspects of the almost 40-year illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The creation of these military barriers, often manned by 19-year-old soldiers who act like bullies, is a brutal act of mass subjection and control. For the American taxpayer to reinforce these checkpoints as part of a supposed gift from the American people to the Palestinian people is a disgrace to everything good that America stands for.

Israeli checkpoints have witnessed the restriction of the movement of people and goods, a clear violation of international humanitarian law. Many Palestinian workers, students and passersby have been killed by Israeli soldiers at these checkpoints. Human rights groups have documented cases of pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying their fetus as they wait at these inhuman border crossing points.

THE ECONOMIC deprivation caused by the checkpoints accounts for millions of dollars of losses according to international financial organizations. The situation at the checkpoints has been so bad that a number of Israeli and international women peace activists formed an organization, Mahsom Watch (checkpoint watch), aimed at trying to attempt to stop the cases of humiliation and abuse carried out regularly at these checkpoints.

Israel’s Shimon Peres has often spoken about how humiliation by Israeli soldiers at these checkpoints hurts the chance of future dialogue and reconciliation. Even former US Senator George Mitchell felt that the checkpoints were a major source of humiliation and mentioned them as part of the Mitchell Plan. The road map, which incorporates much of the Mitchell Plan, calls for the removal of all checkpoints created after September 2000, not their reinforcement.

Defenders of the US Congress might claim that this money will help reduce the bottlenecks at these checkpoints. As The Washington Post notes, the money is supposed to go "to Israel to build terminals for people and goods at checkpoints surrounding Palestinian areas."

That may well be the case, but why should the US be supporting a travel restriction that is already declared by the US and its allies as inherently wrong? If Israel needs to keep the checkpoints for its own security, American taxpayers should not relieve Israel of the cost of its own illegal occupation.

Furthermore, helping Israel by using money pledged to the Palestinians is tantamount to rubbing salt in a wound. This is not what one would expect of a broker for peace or a champion of human rights, democracy and freedom.

Fighting tyranny worldwide was the issue that the US congress applauded in President Bush’s State of the Union address. Now the same Congress wants to reward tyranny. Or does tyranny have different colors?

Another issue causing deep resentment to Palestinians is the intention to divert a further $2 million of the amount pledged to Palestinians to Hadassah Hospital. If the aim is to provide medical help to Palestinians, there are 100 other ways of doing it. Palestinian medical institutions, whether public or private, could be helped.

If giving the money directly to the Palestinian Health Ministry is a problem to some US congressmen, funds could be entrusted to a local or international NGO to spend on Palestinian medical needs as they see fit, and not as Hadassah sees fit. Alternatively, why not support the transfer of Palestinians to an Arab hospital in, say, Jordan or Egypt, where Palestinians can get good medical help in a culturally more appropriate setting?

If these US congressional restrictions are enforced, it will be a terrible blow to the efforts of so many good people in America. If the gift from the American is coated with poison, it will be a terrible mark that will take a long time to heal.

America, please practice what you preach. Show respect to the afflicted, and don’t allow your generosity to be abused in such a humiliating way.

The corridors of the normally quiet Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University were crowded on Tuesday as students and their supporters from various political groups were busy worrying about elections.



After a five-year hiatus, students at Al Quds University were given the chance to cast their votes for the 51-seat student council. Students wearing various colours were clutching rosters, crossing those who had voted, hoping they had cast their votes in favour of their faction.

The groups running for student council this year were not much different from those of previous years. Feeling strong about their chances of winning, Fateh supporters ran alone this year, on a slate named after the late president Yasser Arafat.

Islamic groups — possibly feeling weaker than before — were united (Hamas, Jihad and Islamic independents), creating a single block. Left-wing supporters produced their own block.

The election campaign was tough and at times nasty, with Islamic supporters distributing leaflets they claimed were secret documents showing that the university administration clearly favoured some of the Palestinian Authority personnel, including some from the security apparatuses, for scholarships.

The Fateh leadership, which had been surprised by a number of defeats in the first leg of the municipal elections in Gaza, were clearly more prepared this time, spending effort and money to make sure that their supporters won big.

The student council elections at Al Quds University produced a major coup. After over 20 years during which the Islamic groups had monopolised student council life, this year the Fateh-backed students won a clear majority, with 26 seats going to the Arafat faction and two seats going to their traditional left-wing PLO allies.

Election fever was also prevalent in 84 different cities, villages and townships. According to the Palestinian Central Election Commission, some 2,519 candidates were competing for 906 seats throughout Gaza and the West Bank.

Among the cities witnessing hotly contested campaigns was Bethlehem, were the competition was not between Fateh and Islamic candidates but between differing streams within Fateh, because the number of Christian seats was guaranteed. The battle was especially fierce in the Bethlehem and Beit Sahour municipalities, were traditional and known Fateh candidates were challenged by younger and less known figures.

It is hard to say whether the results of the students’ elections or even those of the municipalities are any major indicator of the way the political tide is going. The key elections for the Palestinian legislative council are to be held on July 17. The election law has yet to be finalised. The present draft, which passed the first reading, calls for two thirds of the seats representing local candidates and one-third reflecting party slates. Fateh MPs who are a majority in the present PLC feel that this system (rather than the 50-50 system) would better favour their candidates.

Palestinian election fever certainly reflects some of the changes that have been taking place for the past six months. The retraction of the hardline Islamic and secular groups indicates that Palestinians are clearly moving closer to a more moderate political and pragmatic direction. How long this direction will last and whether it will be reflected in the upcoming legislative elections is hard to predict. One thing is for sure: both Islamic and Fateh leaderships know that at least in the upcoming elections they need to field credible, trusted and clean candidates or else they will face political defeat. For that and that alone, elections, any elections are certainly better than no elections.

Today was a special day for me. For the first time since I began my media work, one of the main donors to my various projects was coming to visit. Aryeh Neir the president of the Open Society Institute. Anthony Richter, OSI’s man in the region, and a good friend, wanted me to set up a round table discussion for Aryeh with local Palestinian journalists. A day before the meeting, I was in touch with Anthony and waited for him at the American Colony. They were held up at the Qalandia checkpoint for about an hour and by the time they got in, they were so exhausted that we decided to wait till to following day. Knowing the OSI had been active for some time in Uzbakistan, I asked Anthony if he knew more of what was happening. He did but was waiting to make it official in a strategic way in a couple of days. He confided with me that his information was that the number of those killed in the country following the demonstrations was closer to 750. He also thought that American weapons were most likely used in the shootings at demonstrators.