Last week, Israel barred a UNESCO fact-finding mission from entering the country, charging that the Palestinians had ‘politicized’ the mission before it had even arrived. The mission was tasked with looking into conditions of historical sites in the Old City of Jerusalem, something Israel apparently found to be very threatening.

Looking at the state of Jerusalem’s eastern sector today, it is understandable why Israel would not want UNESCO or anyone else walking around the Old City, especially the Palestinian-populated parts of it. Because anyone who does, will see the devastation that Israel and its settlers have wreaked on one of the oldest and most beautiful cities in the world.

Excavation works are being conducted in and around the Aqsa Mosque to make way for more Jewish construction at the place where Waqf authorities say Ottoman and Abbasid artifacts have long been tucked away. A Muslim graveyard is being dug up just outside the Old City’s Jaffa Gate, to build – ironically – a museum of tolerance. Today, two stores were forcefully taken over by Jewish settlers in Al Hakari, one of the neighborhoods in the Muslim quarter and every day, it seems that more and more homes are either being demolished by Israeli municipality authorities or being taken over by Jewish settlers.

The “Judiazation” of Jerusalem is a term many Palestinians and Arabs use for what Israel is doing in the city. In a nutshell, it is the long-term plan Israel is gradually carrying out to change the Arab Palestinian character of Jerusalem. This means demolishing old and historical structures, displacing Palestinians, handing over their homes to settlers and trying to erase the Palestinian or Arab history of the city.

The sad truth is that, on the surface, Israel has succeeded in this to a large extent. Pockets of Jewish settlers now live in the heart of Muslim quarters and aim to take over more and more. Sheikh Jarrah, one of the more affluent Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem, is now pierced with Jewish flags waving from homes that have been wrestled from their Palestinian owners, and Israel’s light rail train cuts right down through Palestinian neighborhoods outside of the city center. The train, of course, is not meant to service the Palestinian population but rather to connect Jewish neighborhoods and settlements in the city, but the area confiscated from Shufat and Beit Hanina for its construction simply fell into the plan.

What the UNESCO mission would not have seen even if they made it into the Old City is the overall humiliation that the Palestinian population of Jerusalem must endure on a daily basis because of Israel’s military occupation. Trips to the Israeli ministry of interior must be made just to prove that one lives in the city for fear that their residency rights may be revoked; young Palestinian men are stopped randomly by Israeli soldiers to check their ID cards or just to harass them, and settlers are always given the luxury of maximum security whenever they walk the streets. If settlers want to march through the city, the Palestinians are told to close their shops, are barred for hours from reaching their homes if they run along the path of the march and are always the ones blamed if any kind of confrontation between the two sides breaks out.

Jerusalem is being squeezed by these measures more and more each day. But there is always that glimmer of hope, that strength that shines through proving that all is not lost. On Shavuot, Israeli settlers and extremists poured into the Old City, singing loudly, banging on the shop doors and waving huge Israeli flags. The sight was disconcerting to say the least. However, the afternoon of that same day, at Damascus Gate, passersby were met with a completely different scene. Palestinian flags waved in determined Palestinian hands under the threatening eye of heavily armed Israeli police and soldiers. The youths were fearless, demanding freedom, with strong, unrelenting voices.

The sight of the Palestinian flag waving at the entrance to Damascus Gate was a breath of fresh air. All is not lost and never will be because hope is eternal and determination and strength come from a never-ending spring.

That day at Damascus Gate is what all Palestinians must keep in their minds’ eye in spite of the daily oppression of the occupation. No matter how many missions Israel bars from entering or how many houses it takes over, there will always be those brave souls who, despite the risks, will always raise Palestine’s flag.

Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.

There is no point falling into the pit of countering the claims being made about the death of Mohammed Al Durra, the 12-year old boy from Gaza whose videotaped killing was seen around the world. The boy, crouching in fear behind is equally afraid father as bullets whizzed around them, was killed admittedly by the Israeli army. Later, the army recanted after investigating the tape, saying Durra was killed by Palestinian fire instead. Well now, Israel is changing its story altogether, saying he was not killed at all. In fact, he was probably not even wounded and the French channel that broadcast the footage and brought some pretty bad rap to Israel, had most likely filmed a charade.

The reason why I will not waste my time countering this claim is that even with the great lengths the Israeli government went to to prove that the boy was never killed, it could not provide any irrefutable proof that Mohammed Al Durra – who would be 25 now – is still alive. No pictures, no testimonies, no hospital or morgue officials giving statements to refute his death, have been provided. Only sketchy information about ‘poor quality footage’ and the fact that it seems as though the boy moved his arm after he had slumped over his father following the explosion.

My point is this: indeed, Mohammed Durra’s death was at least one of the catalysts that fueled the second Intifada, and thus, was an important event in the history of the Palestinians. However, more importantly – most importantly to me –is the fact that this is about a boy who died in sheer terror, with his distraught father futilely trying to shelter him from the barrage of bullets coming their way.

Mohammed Al Durra was a boy, with a life, a family and friends. He died a horrible death and now he is being made to die a second one. I did not know Mohammed or his family, but I can only imagine how awful it must be for them to read these claims now and feel the pain of losing their child all over again. If nothing else, this is disrespect for human life of the worst kind.

Some may postulate that the rehashing of the Durra case is a personal jab at the French cameraman who shot the footage, Charles Enderlin. Perhaps. But as a Palestinian who has seen the pain endured by numerous families who receive the horrible news that their sons or daughters have been killed by the Israeli army, my concern is for his family and for his memory. He should be left to rest in peace. If Israel has axes to grind with French journalists or with the international community for holding it accountable for its actions, then so be it. Israel is not lacking in the public relations department.

That being said, there is just one decent thing left to do. Leave Mohammed Al Durra and his memory alone.

Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.

This week Palestinians will commemorate Al Nakba, the catastrophe that befell the Palestinian people when Israel was founded. Every year, Palestinians hang placards pointing to the right of return, they carry keys symbolizing the homes they were forced to leave and could not return to and remember the Palestine that was lost to them 65 years ago.

This year will be no different. Every May 15, Palestinian recall their catastrophe and demand justice. They demand that they are granted the right of return for those who were made refugees virtually overnight and were then relegate to a life they did not choose. But more than anything, they demand recognition of the tragedy that befell them rather than a denial that it ever happened, or worse, that it was of their own making.

It has been 65 years since Israel was established in 1948, which means those who were cast into exile are either very old or have long passed. Those who experienced the Nakba are now few and far between, clinging to those few precious memories of a small garden in front of their house in Jaffa or of the salty smell of the sea in their neighborhood in Haifa. The rest of us are either descendants of these refugees or ordinary Palestinians who feel their cause is our cause because we are one people.

But the Palestinians have made one thing clear. The refugee issue will not die with the last refugee. It is felt nationwide, the loss, the injustice and the fact that those who were forced from their homes have mostly passed, longing for their beloved homes.

We cannot turn back time. What was lost has been altered, destroyed, changed or taken over by Israel’s newcomers. What we can do is hold on to the right to be recognized, for the injustice to be rectified in word and deed and for Palestine to never be lost in our minds or hearts.

Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.

Upon the initiative of the Egyptian President Husni Mubarak, leaders from Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority will hold a summit meeting in the Egyptian Sharm Al-Sheikh resort on Tuesday.

It is not clear whether the Tuesday summit is planned as a continuity or as a replacement of the planned for Monday Palestinian-Israeli summit.

The quartet summit, announced by Egyptian security Chief Omar Suleiman on Wednesday, follows the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli security cooperation.

The Egyptian Role:

While both Palestinians and Israelis has praised Egypt for its efforts to shore up a cease-fire agreement, the new Palestinian leadership worked to ensure that Egypt only play a protocol role in the shaping of the internal Palestinian truce agreement.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas insisted on finalizing the security understandings with main Palestinian resistance groups prior to departing for Egypt, signaling that Egypt, the big Arab brother, is welcomed to help, but that Palestinian internal affairs are limited to Palestinians.

Israel is forced to sollow an increasing in importance Egyptian role against its long standing desire to limit security issues to bilateral Israeli-Palestinian discussions.

In general Israel systematically attempted to escape allowing any serious level of involvement in political or security negotiations to any "third" party, with the exception of the involvement of its main ally the United states.

Yet, the crucially needed Egyptian role at the Egyptian-Gaza borders and the reported promise to return the Egyptian Ambassador to Tel Aviv were enough incentives for Sharon to accept joining a regional summit.

Why Jordan?

 Different from the "cold" peace with Egypt, Israel presents its peace treaty with Jordan as the example to be followed. Jordan and Israel went steps further in normalizing relations with no links to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is also very likely that Jordan will declare returning its Ambassador to Tel Aviv during the scheduled for Tuesday summit.

The Truce:

Most commentators believe that the planned summit would witness the declaration of a mutual truce, a step that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon refrained from taking.

If declared, it will meet the main Palestinian resistance groups demand to turn the relative calm period into a comprehensive cease-fire.

The package of Israeli goodwill gestures to be presented in return to Palestinian steps implemented in the past few weeks to control the security situation are likely to be the most disappointing.

So far, Israel has approved the immediate release of 500 prisoners, almost matches the number of Palestinians arrested each month, with intentions to release 400 more in the coming 3 months. Yet, no prisoners "with blood on hand" will be released.

Fears that Abbas would face similar Israeli attitudes to the ones he faced when acting as the Palestinian prime minister are still residing within PA senior officials, especially as Abbas desperately need bold steps, which has a direct impact on life in the Palestinian territories, to combat the growing popularity of the Islamic opposition.

Israel has also approved the handover of some Palestinian West bank cities to PA security. Yet, removing mobility obstacles are still in the stage of talking and promising, nothing substantial has changed on ground.

The Absence of the U.S:

No indications were made by either side on whether the new U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, who will be visiting the region very soon, would join the summit meeting.

The U.S. likely absence from such an important Middle east event could point to the fact that the U.S. is still wavering on the extent of its direct involvement in the current course of events.

What for:

As Palestinians and Israeli have almost concluded preparations for Sharon-Abbas summit, it is not fully clear whether the regional quartet summit is needed to hammer down few of the remaining unsettled points or a mere ceremonial one that all participants need to help promote moves taken, which are unpopular among their constituencies.

"Abbas stands in a difficult position: he needs to deal with an Israeli Prime Minister (Sharon) who doesn't hesitate to demand the impossible; respond to a U.S. president whose fantasies of a 'war on terrorism' are costing the Palestinian people heavily; and live with a domestic Islamic movement that is steadily growing in popularity and influence."

Beyond any doubt Hamas won big in the local elections for ten municipal councils in the Gaza Strip. The Islamist group won majority in seven of the councils, harvesting 77 seats out of 118, almost triple the number of seats Fatah, the so far described as the largest Palestinian group, gained.

The ten Gaza councils together with the 26 West bank councils were selected for the first round of local elections. Many, including few committee members believe that the selection of councils also considered Fatah’s influence.

Hamas celebrated its outstanding triumph, claiming that its participation drew an unprecedented turnout, close to 90%, hinting that its decision to boycott the presidential elections resulted in an extremely law turnout.

Indicators on Hamas’s growing popularity are extremely important for the Islamic movement.

Hamas is still debating participation in the slated for July legislative elections, but is already decided on joining the PLO institutions.

As the Palestinian legislative council is one of the Palestinian Authority institutions, which was established on the bases of the Oslo accords that Hamas in principle rejects, it is easier for the Islamist movement to join Palestinian decision making platforms through the doors of the PLO.

The new Palestinian leadership is working to also reform the PLO institutions. Being an organization that represents Palestinians across the globe, it is very likely that restructuring the PLO will happen on the assigned quota bases.

Hamas’s extraordinary triumph in local elections would strengthen its claims of being the largest Palestinian political movement, therefore is entitled to the largest quota of representation in all PLO institutions.

Also, it is very likely that the recent triumph would strengthen the “moderates” inside Hamas who are calling the movement to take part in the legislative elections.

Since established in the late eighties, Hamas managed to develop into a widely supported resistance movement with a strong social welfare program. Joining the national struggle and working to elevate the suffering of the densely crowded and poor Palestinian communities, gave a boost to the movement’s popularity, especially among the residents of refugee camps and poor cities neighborhoods; more in Gaza than the West bank.

Also, the drastic failure of the PA political and national program in the past ten years, combined with wide scale corruption and malfunctioning, helped Hamas to present itself as an alternative. Hamas’s triumph presents a serious challenge to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. It sheds doubts over his ability to run his political and reforms programs. It shows that his political backbone, Fatah has lost much of its popularity and influence to the Islamist.

Abbas will not be able to ignore the election results; therefore, it is likely that he would refrain from rushing into moves which, however unpopular among Palestinians, are demanded by the Israeli government.

Abbas stands in a difficult position: he needs to deal with an Israeli Prime Minister (Sharon) who doesn't hesitate to demand the impossible; respond to a U.S. president whose fantasies of a 'war on terrorism' are costing the Palestinian people heavily; and live with a domestic Islamic movement that is steadily growing in popularity and influence

Most Palestinians were not eligible to vote in the recent Palestinian elections, because they are absentees, in a wide sense of that word. In the end, less than one million Palestinians cast their ballots. Outside Iraq, on the other hand, a small minority of absentees are vigorously encouraged to vote. In this way, and in others, Palestinians are – unwittingly or not – portrayed as a negligible quantity. However, there are in fact nearly eight million Palestinians, including refugees according to the UN definition of that term. They are still a vast majority in and outside Historic Palestine compared to the five million Israeli Jews. But they remain, in the foreseeable future, a fragmented nation.

The Bush administration seems to have forgotten why it went to war in Iraq. Let us remind the reader: in order to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, and to pre-empt the use of these weapons by the former Iraqi regime. However, it did not find any, and after over one and a half years of vain searching (following over a decade of UN-led searches) – as well as other ‘mistakes’, including a very high civilian death toll and torture scandals – the US government has now come up with a mainly ‘retroactive’ reason for going there: to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq. As Seymour Hersh recently pointed out (The Coming Wars: What the Pentagon Can Now Do in Secret, New Yorker, January 19, 2005), the members of the new Bush administration have been picked to a large extent because of two publicly stated main government policy objectives: to win the war on terrorism and to bring democracy to the Middle East, objectives that were not on the official agenda when the first Bush administration was formed.

Is the democracy pledge a desperate Plan B, or just an exit strategy for the US in Iraq? Time will tell. What can be said now with a fair degree of certainty is that the upcoming Iraqi election will continue being used to justify the war.

As the USA and its coalition partners will claim credit for enabling these elections, whatever the outcome, there will no doubt also be many associations and comparisons made with the Palestinian presidential elections of two weeks ago. The latter have been styled by the west as the first-ever democratic elections in the Arab World. During the next few weeks we are thus likely to hear the following mantras in US government circles and media, and not only there: “We now know that Arabs can hold democratic elections”; “Democracy is spreading in the Middle East”; “We are on the right track: Israel, Palestinian Authority, Iraq, who’s next?”

It would perhaps be both prudent and instructive to reflect on the ideological importance of the Palestinian elections before they are used or abused for such purposes. The question that first comes to mind is: what do the Palestinian and Iraqi elections have in common? Obviously a great deal. Perhaps it is wiser to concentrate on how they differ.

Formally, the Palestinian Authority does not (yet) rule a state, as opposed to the Iraqi interim government. The main reason is that Israel militarily occupies the territory granted the Palestinians by the international community in 1947 and 1967, respectively. But Iraq is also under military occupation, also by powers with overwhelming military strength, so this difference, though formally important, appears to be less than essential. And the occupation troops are not going to be leaving Iraq on January 31. That is for sure. The Iraqi and Palestinian elections are thus both held under conditions of military occupation which severely limit their governments’ sovereignty and independence, and hamper a true democratic process.

The war in Iraq is a high-intensity war with hundreds of thousands of casualties so far. Last Thursday alone saw no less than four suicide attacks and at least 25 deaths. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the other hand, is often referred to as a low-intensity war. But, obviously, this is a mere matter of degree. Tens of deaths have happened in a day here as well. The Israeli army’s ‘Days of Penitence’ operation in Gaza last year is not fundamentally different from the US assault on Falluja this winter. In sum, there have been hundreds of thousands of casualties here too. The ongoing US-led war in Iraq can be extended backwards in time to 1991, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to 1948. With hindsight, it is hard to say which one is the bloodier conflict.

The main difference between these elections does not seem so dramatic at first glance. Absentee votes did not take place in the Palestinian National Authority presidential elections. In just about every country with elections (whether democratic or not), absentee votes are extended to a minority group of people that remain citizens but are not present in the country during the general elections. With regard to Palestine, however, the majority of people, nearly five million people, are absentees. Many of them have acquired citizenship in other countries, a million in Israel alone. But many are denied citizenship altogether, for instance most of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. It would have made democratic and moral sense to let, at least, these stateless people vote in Palestinian elections, especially since Palestine is not yet a state, and also because they belong to no other state. Instead, there was no absentee voting at all in the PNA elections, not even the 8,000 Palestinians held by Israel as prisoners were allowed to vote. The inhabitants of east Jerusalem, however, were given the opportunity to vote with obstacles: Only 6,000 were allowed to vote in their home city, the rest of 125,000 east Jerusalem Palestinians eligible were forced to leave the city to vote. Moreover, the Israelis created “the appearance of an absentee ballot being cast in Jerusalem for sending to a Palestinian state that was ‘somewhere else’. Therefore, voting was carried out only in post offices…” (Gila Svirsky: A Tale of Two Elections, Miftah, January 11, 2005). Little by little, Israel is carrying out a blatant annexation of east Jerusalem in clear contradiction to international law. The voting and campaigning restrictions in east Jerusalem are an ideological and political part of this ongoing and illegal land grab.

The problem of absentee voting has wide connotations. One possibility of interpreting and justifying this peculiarity in Palestinian voting procedure starts from the fact that the vast majority of these refugees have never lived in the West Bank or Gaza. They were born in exile, and so they have no direct knowledge of the political situation. Nevertheless, they are directly affected by the policies and decisions of the new PNA president, and in return they influence PNA policy profoundly. Only yesterday, a senior Israeli official said that only an interim peace deal would be possible with the new PNA president, Mahmoud Abbas, since he holds final status issues such as the right of return of Palestinian refugees too sacrosanct.

On the other side of the ‘fence’, Israelis treat Palestinian refugees as non-existent, their rights as well. As Uri Davis pointed out in his book, ‘Apartheid Israel’ (London: Zed Books, 2003), “[U]nder Israeli law, any Jew throughout the world has the right of immediate immigration to, settlement in and citizenship of the State of Israel after an alleged forced absence of 2,000 years, but the displaced Palestinian Arab refugees of 1948 and their descendants – some four million people today – are denied the same right, in violation of international law and United Nations resolutions, although their [undeniably] forced absence is less than 60 years. The Israeli legislator does not recognize the term ‘refugee’ as far as the Palestinian Arab is concerned.” (pg. 100) Instead, Palestinians are divided into two classes by Israeli law, ‘present’ and ‘absent’. Those who are absent, moreover, have no right to their own property, otherwise a universal and basic human right, which in Israel has been confiscated by the so-called ‘Custodian of Absentees’ Property’, and has been and still is handed out to immigrant Jews instead. According to Davis, absentees are people who do not exist in the eyes of Israeli law.

The class of ‘absentees’ even includes 250,000 Palestinians, a quarter of all Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, who live in the state of Israel, so-called ‘present absentees’ (if this expression does not baffle you, look up ‘oxymoron’ in the dictionary), who also lack the right to their own property under Israeli law. These are people who were internally displaced during the 1948-49 war, the vast majority of them non-combatants, and their descendants. Similarly, Palestinians in Lebanon are not only denied Lebanese citizenship, but work permits and a host of other rights extended to other foreigners.

Although many Palestinians who were not eligible in the PNA elections do have the vote in other countries, they are being discriminated against in many of those other countries, and therefore a dual citizenship option with the possibility of voting in future Palestinian Authority elections would perhaps not be a bad idea. An even better idea would be to implement the Palestinian refugees’ right of return, as international law demands, but Israel refuses to let this happen.

With regard to the title of Uri Davis’ book: The present stage of Palestinian democracy is much more developed than any semblance of democracy that the South African Bantustans ever achieved, but the PNA areas are otherwise Bantustans. The Israelis have been practicing apartheid (oppressive separation) against Palestinians from the very start, from 1948, but the parallels with the crime against humanity perpetrated against a black indigenous majority in South Africa are becoming even more obvious than before in Historic Palestine. According to Yossi Alpher (‘Demography Tops Territory in New Strategic Calculus’, Forward, January 8, 2005), most Israelis now believe that territory does not necessarily provide security (for them), “especially when it [the territory] comes with millions of Palestinians”, and so Israelis now prefer to implement and enforce an oppressive separation (e.g. by means of an illegal wall) that already far exceeds most aspects of South African apartheid in intensity.

It therefore comes closer to ethnic cleansing than South African apartheid ever did, except during the 17th-18th century genocide of Khoikhoi people in the Cape. A new Israeli demographic study, carried out with a far-right agenda, and presently being circulated among US lawmakers and other influential people, states that there as many as 1.5 million Palestinians ‘missing’ from the occupied territories. The Palestinian Authority’s own figure is 3.8 million, but the new ‘study’ claims there are only 2.4. The strategy here is to discourage the creation of a Palestinian state, since Palestinians are allegedly already doomed to minorityhood in Historic Palestine. This strategy implies further conquest, division, expulsion, and killings.

The comparison with Iraq is of no use here. The war there resembles a colonial war of conquest. If present trends continue, Iraq is likely to end up, though, as a neocolonial dependency. In any event, Iraq is not being settled aggressively by invaders from afar who claim it is their home.

In the end, the bewildering situation in which Palestinians now find themselves is in the aftermath of an election in Palestine where only 45 per cent of eligible voters voted under foreign military occupation for a president of a country without sovereignty, and where the vast majority of nationals were not even eligible – an election which is nevertheless hailed in western countries and elsewhere as being the first democratic elections in an Arab country, ever. Paradoxically, they were essentially democratic, thanks to Palestinian and EU and UN efforts, but they were also essentially undemocratic, especially thanks to Israeli efforts.

Participation:

Around 41% of all eligible Palestinian voters voted in the presidential elections, yet they constitute 71% of registered voters.

In practice, the Palestinian legislative council decision to allow the ones who did not register to vote according to the civil registration data base in 72 opened voting stations, and the decision of the central election committee to extend voting for two hours, allowing voters to use their Identity Cards as the only identification check, did not help to raise the voters’ percentage, but only help arose doubts of possible frauds.

Hamas call for boycotting elections played no role in the low turnout rate. In reality, being interested in at least local councils elections, Hamas urged all of its members and supporters to register, yet only 61% of eligible voters registered.

As a high percentage among registered voters, around 71%, voted, then Hamas can’t claim that people did not arrive at ballot stations because of Hamas’s call.

In fact, the main reason for the low turnout in registration was due to the fact that when registration centers were opened, people did not trust that there will be any elections. As well, the continued Israeli incursions in certain areas, such as Nablus and Rafah, did not allow for registration centers to be open long enough to register voters. Finally, the Israeli objection to opening registration centers for the 120,000 Jerusalemite eligible voters contributed significantly to the low turnout.

As it appears to be, the civil registration data base, which was handed to the PA by Israel was extremely problematic. According to the Palestinian central election committee, names were translated from Hebrew, therefore did not match the real Arabic names of persons, the issue that created a stall in most of the 72 voting stations allocated for non-registered voters.

Palestinians explained that as the data base is shared between the PA and Israel, Israel refused to allow the PA interior ministry to update the data base, therefore, around 300,000 names were handed last minute to PA, translated from Hebrew and disorganized.

Hundreds of Palestinians who arrived at such ballot stations could not find their names in the passed data base, therefore, election committee decided to allow voting based on Identity Cards only.

No doubt that the expected extremely low turnout in Jerusalem came due to “intentional disruptions” that even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter protested against.

PLO Head Mahmoud Abbas did win the race with 62% of the registered voters, yet his opponents can claim that he won the vote of less than 40% of all eligible voters. As the West bank and Gaza Strip Palestinians are less than 50% of the total Palestinian population, they can also claim that he still lacks the popular backing needed to make concessions in the name of Palestinians.

Nevertheless, according to international standards, Abbas has been elected as the new PA chairperson in open, fairly transparent, and democratic elections.

Democratic Election:

Even when the legislative council decision to approve the usage of the controversial civil registration data base created a certain level of confusion and arose doubts over possible frauds, in general Palestinian elections were run to the standard held in advanced countries with a long democratic histories.

Palestinians are rightly proud of their ability to run free and democratic elections even while living under occupation, but should be more proud that the environment in which elections were held was almost free from any tension or violence.

According to most international observers, not only third world countries have much to learn from the Palestinian experience, but also western democracies.

An Egyptian observer commented on Palestinian elections by saying that all Arab countries need to learn from the Palestinian experience. “What we have in most Arab countries is a joke compared to the Palestinian experience” he said.

Lessons Learned: Most important lesson to be learned is the fact that Palestinians are calling their political factions to modernize and implement reforms.

The phenomenon of Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi is worth of careful examination. 20% of registered voters voted for him as compared to around 3% only voting for representatives of well established political PLO factions such as DFLP and PP.

In reality, the candidacy of Dr. Barghouthi brought back to the Palestinian political map the progressive movement, which was for long marginalized due to internal fragmentations, the recent conservative wave that swept the Palestinian society, and being seen as a shaky shadow for the PA affiliated Fatah movement.

Barghouthi managed to make a fairly strong comeback for progressive secular Palestinians. Right now, it could be claimed that the Palestinian society is politically and socially divided into three main powers; an authority party (Fatah), the Islamic movement, and the progressive movement.

Around 25% Palestinian registered voters voted for representatives of progressive secular movements.