------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:28:08 +0200
Subject:       For moderation - Jerusalem: Palestinians boycott Israeli elections
From:          [log in to unmask]
To:            [log in to unmask]

BADIL Resource Center
For release: 12-11-1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------

PALESTINIANS BOYCOTT ISREALI MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IN JERUSALEM

Palestinians abstained from participating in the November 10 elections for the 
Israeli municipal council in Jerusalem. Only 6.5% of the eligible voters (i.e. 
some 4,500 people) cast their vote in the Palestinian East Jerusalem ballots, 
far less than the average Jerusalem voter participation of 40%. Since ballots 
used by Israeli settlers in the Old City are included among those listed "East 
Jerusalem ballots" in the official Israeli election statistics, a major portion 
of the 2,250 East Jerusalem votes for Olmert are likely to be not Palestinian, 
but Israeli settler votes. This brings actual Palestinian participation down to 
3.3% (some 2,000 persons) which is the lowest voter turnout in East Jerusalem 
since 1967.

Election Boycott - a last minute symbolic victory

The 30 year old Palestinian boycott of Israeli municipal elections was 
maintained once again. Palestinian national unity around the total rejection of 
Israel's occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem was confirmed for the next 
five year period. "An Opinion Poll Against the Occupation" was the headline of 
Al-Ayyam newspaper on the day following the elections, a headline which well 
expressed the sense of relief and joy among all those who continue to hold that 
a solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be based on international 
law and provide for Palestinian national rights also in 1967 occupied East 
Jerusalem. Joy yes, but why relief? Relief, because unity and consensus apparent 
in the election results were not given or guaranteed in the period preceding 
these elections. The Palestinian community in Jerusalem and its leadership were 
in fact involved in a heavy debate in which Palestinian participation in the 
Israeli municipal elections was - for the first time - considered a legitimate 
option by many, and not marginalized, Palestinian leaders and opinion makers.

A sense of indecision, division, and defeat had clouded the atmosphere over 
Palestinian Jerusalem in the pre-election period - while Israel seemed more than 
ever united and determined to complete and expand its East Jerusalem settlements 
in order to secure its claim on the city. For long, the Palestinian leadership 
had failed to respond decisively. The successful candidacy of an Arab List 
headed by Moussa Alayan, a Palestinian resident of Beit Safafa, exposed a host 
of inconsistencies and questions concerning Palestinian unity on the issue of 
Jerusalem. Moussa Alayan's campaign for city council in East Jerusalem on a 
fully Arab list had raised only a murmur of dissent from the Palestinian 
political factions. In fact, according to Moussa Alayan, prior consent was given 
to his candidacy by leading members of Fatah, the Islamic Council, and Feisal 
Husseini. Al-Quds newspaper refused to publish statements by the Lobby for Human 
Rights in Jerusalem, a coalition of nine Palestinian NGOs, that denounced 
Alayan's campaign as strengthening Israeli sovereignty on Jerusalem. Instead 
Al-Quds, a major Palestinian newspaper, ran a series of pro-Alayan statements 
and candidacy advertisements. 
	Moussa Alayan presented his candidacy as being non-political and 
concerned only with the civil right of receiving municipal benefits that 
Palestinian residents pay for through the municipal (Arnona) tax. Alayan argued 
that there was no connection between his candidacy and the future political 
status of Jerusalem. Instead Alayan, a victim of land confiscation himself, 
believed that his candidacy would strengthen democracy and Palestinian rights in 
Jerusalem.

It was only a few weeks before the elections that the Palestinian leadership was 
finally able to formulate a clear and public position against Palestinian 
participation. In a press conference held at the Orient House on October 19, 
Faisal Husseini stated that, "Although Moussa Alayan is an Israeli citizen from 
1948 and holds an Israeli ID card, I called on him not to run." Jerusalem PLC 
member Hatem Abdel Qader made clear that, "The Palestinian position on Jerusalem 
is an absolute boycott on the elections, both in voting and candidacy." Only 
then was there a green light for the Palestinian political factions in Jerusalem 
and their activists to prepare a commercial strike and rally for the election 
boycott which eventually brought about a result of unity and consensus.

>From symbolic unity to a united struggle?

Only a few days have passed since the elections, relief and satisfaction are 
justified: the boycott held and the Palestinian leadership in Jerusalem was able 
to prove that it still exists and is able to impose its influence. The future of 
Palestinian Jerusalem, however, will not be decided by symbolic victories, but 
by the question of whether the Palestinian leadership will be able to develop a 
new strategy for the struggle against the Israeli occupation and expansionism in 
Jerusalem. Such a strategy must involve the Palestinian community and return its 
faith in the leadership and the possibility of a Palestinian victory over the 
Israeli machinery which has so successfully combined overt and administrative 
violence for so many years. Timing and conditions for a new Palestinian endeavor 
for Jerusalem are favorable: The municipal elections have not only shown that 
the Palestinian community will remain a united front in opposition to all 
Israeli occupation plans and policies, but established a new Israeli 
municipality which is more than ever polarized and divided between Israeli 
secular representatives (Labor, Meretz with 9 seats) and representatives of the 
orthodox Jewish community (with 15-16 seats in the 31 member city council). 
Internal Israeli municipal strife may yet give Palestinians a chance to re-group 
and get back on their feet.


_______________________________________________________________

The material contained in this communication comes to you from the 
Forced-migration Discussion List which is moderated by the Refugee 
Studies Programme (RSP), University of Oxford.  It does not necessarily
reflect the views of the RSP or the University.  If you re-print, copy,
archive or re-post this message please retain this disclaimer.  Quotations
or extracts should include attribution to the original sources.
Forced-migration Discussion list reports are archived on:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/forced-migration.



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%