The PLO: Legitimate and Can Do

By Muhammad Hallaj

Once again the Palestinians are being told that they deserve better leaders. This, of course, is advice that they can easily turn around and offer to those who are giving it. No people, except those who suffer from low self-esteem, would admit that they have the leadership they deserve. But that's beside the point.

"The PLO blundered by embracing Saddam," the Palestinians are told, "and lost esteem in the West."

"Really?" the Palestinians irreverently reply. "How much did the West esteem them before they blundered?" And with barely disguised skepticism they add: "What would the West have done for the Palestinians if the PLO had not blundered, and what would it do for them if they were to accept the unsolicited advice?"

Because in this century they have been governed by alien rulers, the Palestinians have instinctive irreverence toward leaders. Why, then, are they being so stubborn about the PLO?

Palestinians have their own definition of their national interests. They balance the PLO's blunders (real or imagined) with its achievements on their behalf. They remember that before the PLO, their very existence was forgotten by the world. And they know about the student scholarships, assistance to the families of martyrs and prisoners, the schools, the hospitals, the vocational training centers, the encouragement of artists and poets, and all the rest of the invisible PLO that only the Palestinians seem to know or care about. Even when the PLO supported Iraq when it came under attack from NATO, it reflected widespread Palestinian sentiment. If the Palestinians blundered, they blundered together.

Second, if the leadership issue were a contest between Arafat and Plato's philosopher king, Arafat wouldn't have a chance, and the Palestinians are the first to admit this sad fact. When it is a contest between Arafat and some faceless Uncle Tom certified by Israel, however, it's a different matter.

Third, it is not the PLO, but what the PLO stands for, that the Palestinians are being asked to abandon. When Israel wrecks a peace process because it could not accept a Palestinian (any Palestinian) from Jerusalem on a negotiating team, it is obvious that no leadership which faithfully articulates Palestinian rights would be acceptable to Israel. Palestinians cling to the PLO because they understand that it is their demands that are being contested, not only those who express their demands, For that reason, they equate dumping the PLO with abandonment of their national rights.

Fourth, it is not only the Palestinians who need the PLO. The peace process does. Who else can make an agreement on behalf of the Palestinians and make it stick? Knowing that only the PLO can speak authoritatively for the Palestinians, Israel wants to subvert it, and then protest that "there is no one to talk to." It is a way to evade making peace.

Finally, Palestinian leaders are not generalissimos who came to power through a coup; they are chosen by constituents. Whatever happened to the notion that legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed?

Muhammad Hallaj is the director of the Palestine Research and Education Center in Fairfax, VA, and edits its magazine, Palestine Perspectives.