On Saturday, Dec. 26, Israeli forces shot dead six Palestinians in two separate attacks in the West Bank city of Nablus and northern Gaza Strip. Human rights groups and witnesses said Israeli undercover units extra-judicially executed three members of the Fatah Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Israel says were involved in shooting a Jewish settler on Dec. 24 in the Nablus District.
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) said: "Israeli occupation forces claimed that undercover unit fired at the three victims as they refused to surrender. However, investigations conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) conclude that the three victims were executed in cold blood."
(http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2009/129-2009.html)
The Thursday and Saturday incidents in Nablus have very serious repercussions, particularly for the Palestinian government of Salam Fayyad which was blasted and verbally attacked during angry demonstrations and funerals. Angry Palestinians chanted anti-Israeli slogans and demanded ending security coordination between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
The Nablus shootings may be a turning point in the security coordination between Fayyad's government and Israel.
Palestinian officials said Israeli authorities tricked Fayyad's government which was already taking measures and arresting people for involvement in the shooting of the rabbi. While the Palestinian security services were busy in Tulkarm area, the Israeli under cover units made a surprise attack in Nablus, a move not coordinated with the Palestinian Authority, and instead of arresting the three Fatah militants, they shot them dead at close range. Witnesses said the three Palestinians were either not armed or did not return fire.
The Nablus killings led to a popular backlash against Fayyad's security coordination moves with Israel and led even some members of his own security forces to question the merits of coordination with the Israelis.
Fayyad considers the incident as "very serious" and has called every American official and General he knows in the United States on their cell phones despite the holidays to demand intervention to put an end, once and for all, to all Israeli raids into Palestinian cities.
The American's, realising the seriousness of the situation, are pre-occupied with seeking clarifications from the Israelis to try to calm emotions and find a way to restore trust. Some have proposed an urgent meeting between Fayyad, senior Israeli defense officials and the Americans to redefine and outline accepted security coordination measures. Fayyad, however, seeking to prevent the collapse of the Palestinian Territories again into lawlessness and to preserve his so far successful measures to end armed chaos, is demanding that the U.S. press Israel to end its raids in the Palestinian areas.
It is interesting to note that despite the anger in Nablus at the government's security coordination with Israel and emotional calls for revenge, the normal Palestinians in Nablus are worried about being drawn back to violence and lawlessness.
"People want to live. We don't want to see the return of suffocating, humiliating checkpoints like Huwara checkpoint. It seems Israel wants to take us back to the vicious cycle of violence," a Palestinian housewife from Nablus said.
Meanwhile, the American envoy George Mitchell is engaged in trying to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval on a package that the Americans believe can get the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. According to Arab diplomats and Yossi Beilin, as well as an article published last week by the Middle East Forum, Mitchell and the U.S. administration are close to finalising an agreement with Netanyahu for peace talks lasting two years, that will discuss the Palestinian demand for borders based on the 1967 lines and will include an exchange of territory and suitable security arrangements.
According to Haaretz, former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin told the Meretz party leadership that information he got from foreign and Israeli officials confirmed agreement between Netanyahu and the U.S.on the following:
* Timetable: Netanyahu is willing to accept the U.S. proposal to allot 24 months to talks, but doesn't want to announce that the goal is to reach a deal by the end of that period.
* Borders: Netanyahu has agreed that the goal of the talks is to end the conflict and reconcile the Palestinian position of establishing an independent state on the basis of the 1967 borders, with the exchange of agreed-upon territory, and the Israeli position of a Jewish state with recognized and secure borders that will meet Israel's security needs.
* Jerusalem: Netanyahu has agreed that the status of Jerusalem will be discussed in the negotiations, but has not agreed to any preconditions on the issue.
* Refugees: Netanyahu said he was willing to discuss the refugee issue only in a multilateral framework.
* Previous agreements: Netanyahu is willing to commit to all previously signed agreements.
* Arab peace initiative: Netanyahu is not willing to support the plan, but is willing to say both sides are taking into consideration international initiatives that contribute to the advancement of the peace process, such as the Arab peace initiative.
Mitchell is expected to visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the second week of January to complete talks on the terms of reference for negotiations, Beilin said. The Americans believe that such a deal could bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.
Senior Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo said the Palestinians were kept in the dark about the American agreements with Israel.
Other senior Palestinian officials said the agreements fall short of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' demand for starting negotiations from the point they stopped with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert and Abbas had discussed the issue of Jerusalem in some detail. While Olmert said he did not agree to the principle of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, he has agreed to the return of a certain number on humanitarian grounds.
The Palestinian say that a deal with Netanyahu's right-wing government would not be possible, that is why they are demanding U.N. and international support for a U.N. Security Council resolution that determines the borders of the future Palestinian state.
A diplomat in the region said it was critical to get the sides to resume talks and keep the momentum going to prevent falling back into chaos and violence.
“When Mitchell returns in January, President Abbas will have to take tough decisions,” the diplomat said.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Palestinians say it is time to declare statehood
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement he will not run in elections planned for January 24, 2010 has stirred a politicaldebate both within the Palestinian areas, and internationally. Sceptics say he had threatened to resign before and the move was a tactic. But people close to the Palestinian leader insist he is serious this time and the announcement not only reflects his despair, but a shift in strategy and approach.
The moderate 74-year-old Abbas may have reached the conclusion that there needs to be a dramatic shift in strategy in dealing with his internal rivals Hamas who have refused to sign a unity deal to end their violent takeover of Gaza Strip and towards the United States that has failed to convince Israel to pay a price for a final peace witht he Palestinians.
He feels abandoned by Arab states and by the United States. Aides said the Arabs verbally express their support for him but refuse to press Hamas to end the split between Gaza and the West Bank. The U.S. withdrew its demand that Israel totally freeze settlement construction and opted to press the weaker side, the Palestinians, to resume peace talks withour any pre-conditions.
Abbas is not Yasser Arafat, who took up negotiations and supported the fighting during the second Intifada. Abbas' only option has been negotiations alone can achieve statehood.
Abbas' prime minister Salam Fayyad has succeeded in putting an end to armed chaos in the West Bank, and has led a financial reform policy applauded by the international community.
Abbas' options may be limited but may well turn the tables on Israel that wants negotiations to go on forever without results, and the United States and its frantic efforts to restart the negotiating "process" at any cost.
U.S. President Barack Obama had promised to restart peace talks before the end of the year, and if he can't press Israel to give more than a partial freeze, then the Palestinians, as usual, can be leaned on to compromise for the sake of keeping his promise, Palestinians say.
Israelis are asking why is Abbas taking such a maximalist position now, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in power. If Netanyahu's right-wing coalition falls as a result of American pressure to halt settlements, Obama would have to wait for a few months into the next year before a chance to resume negotiations emerges.
The Palestinians have been through this process before and now say gradualism has failed. More voices are being heard calling for the preparation for a unilateral declaration of a state. The move has been delayed since 1999, when under Oslo, the interim peace phases end.
Fayyad, thinking strategicaly, and trying to create new facts on the ground, published in late August a plan that prepares for the creation of the Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, lands occupied in 1967,by 2011. He is not wasting time to wait for Israel to make moves to end its occupation, which may take forever.
Fayyad is working on building the state, like a businessman, using the bottom-up approach, by building the necessary infrastructure of the state and empowering the Palestinians to peacefully work towards ending occupation.
Fayyad, preoccupied with his mission, has silently engaged the Arabs, the international community, including the United States, and the United Nations, to support and adopt his plan. He is the moderate, peaceful technocrat Israel has grown to fear the most.
Like Arafat, he believes that the Palestinians haev made the painful sacrifice for peace in 1988, when the Palestinians recognised Israel and agreed to set up a state on only 22 percent of historical Palestine.
Palestinian politicians, who once criticised his statehood plan on either factional or personal grounds, seem to be drawn to it unconsciously as it becomes the only doable option.
"Gradualism is no longer feasible. The Palestinians should now work to prepare for the declaration of statehood," said former Palestinian negotiator Hassan Asfour.
Western diplomats said Abbas' anouncement not to seek re-election has prompted the U.S. to consider ways of re-engaging him to make him change his mind. One way is to approve a United Nations Security Council resolution that supports the creation of a Palestinian state.
The details of such a resolution are not yet clear, but if such a resolution was adopted, it would act as a pressure tool on Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian Territories and move towards a meaningful peace process. Or it may be added to the pile of U.N. resolutions that only collect dust over the years. The position of the United States on such a resolution may make a difference.
In the meantime, if Abbas is pressed further to re-enter a futile peace process, his options would be:
- Announce the failure of the two-state solution, and dissolve the Palestinian Authority, a clear admission of the failure of the peace strategy.
- Unilateral declaration of statehood
- To step down and hold elections in January.
The Palestinian leadership has not yet reached the point of declaring the failure of the two-state approach, but it is considering the unilateral declaration of a state more seriously.
Western diplomats say Obama may be thinking of declaring the United States support for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza if after two years, negotiations fail to end the conflict.
The Palestinains say they can't wait for another two years.
The moderate 74-year-old Abbas may have reached the conclusion that there needs to be a dramatic shift in strategy in dealing with his internal rivals Hamas who have refused to sign a unity deal to end their violent takeover of Gaza Strip and towards the United States that has failed to convince Israel to pay a price for a final peace witht he Palestinians.
He feels abandoned by Arab states and by the United States. Aides said the Arabs verbally express their support for him but refuse to press Hamas to end the split between Gaza and the West Bank. The U.S. withdrew its demand that Israel totally freeze settlement construction and opted to press the weaker side, the Palestinians, to resume peace talks withour any pre-conditions.
Abbas is not Yasser Arafat, who took up negotiations and supported the fighting during the second Intifada. Abbas' only option has been negotiations alone can achieve statehood.
Abbas' prime minister Salam Fayyad has succeeded in putting an end to armed chaos in the West Bank, and has led a financial reform policy applauded by the international community.
Abbas' options may be limited but may well turn the tables on Israel that wants negotiations to go on forever without results, and the United States and its frantic efforts to restart the negotiating "process" at any cost.
U.S. President Barack Obama had promised to restart peace talks before the end of the year, and if he can't press Israel to give more than a partial freeze, then the Palestinians, as usual, can be leaned on to compromise for the sake of keeping his promise, Palestinians say.
Israelis are asking why is Abbas taking such a maximalist position now, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in power. If Netanyahu's right-wing coalition falls as a result of American pressure to halt settlements, Obama would have to wait for a few months into the next year before a chance to resume negotiations emerges.
The Palestinians have been through this process before and now say gradualism has failed. More voices are being heard calling for the preparation for a unilateral declaration of a state. The move has been delayed since 1999, when under Oslo, the interim peace phases end.
Fayyad, thinking strategicaly, and trying to create new facts on the ground, published in late August a plan that prepares for the creation of the Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, lands occupied in 1967,by 2011. He is not wasting time to wait for Israel to make moves to end its occupation, which may take forever.
Fayyad is working on building the state, like a businessman, using the bottom-up approach, by building the necessary infrastructure of the state and empowering the Palestinians to peacefully work towards ending occupation.
Fayyad, preoccupied with his mission, has silently engaged the Arabs, the international community, including the United States, and the United Nations, to support and adopt his plan. He is the moderate, peaceful technocrat Israel has grown to fear the most.
Like Arafat, he believes that the Palestinians haev made the painful sacrifice for peace in 1988, when the Palestinians recognised Israel and agreed to set up a state on only 22 percent of historical Palestine.
Palestinian politicians, who once criticised his statehood plan on either factional or personal grounds, seem to be drawn to it unconsciously as it becomes the only doable option.
"Gradualism is no longer feasible. The Palestinians should now work to prepare for the declaration of statehood," said former Palestinian negotiator Hassan Asfour.
Western diplomats said Abbas' anouncement not to seek re-election has prompted the U.S. to consider ways of re-engaging him to make him change his mind. One way is to approve a United Nations Security Council resolution that supports the creation of a Palestinian state.
The details of such a resolution are not yet clear, but if such a resolution was adopted, it would act as a pressure tool on Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian Territories and move towards a meaningful peace process. Or it may be added to the pile of U.N. resolutions that only collect dust over the years. The position of the United States on such a resolution may make a difference.
In the meantime, if Abbas is pressed further to re-enter a futile peace process, his options would be:
- Announce the failure of the two-state solution, and dissolve the Palestinian Authority, a clear admission of the failure of the peace strategy.
- Unilateral declaration of statehood
- To step down and hold elections in January.
The Palestinian leadership has not yet reached the point of declaring the failure of the two-state approach, but it is considering the unilateral declaration of a state more seriously.
Western diplomats say Obama may be thinking of declaring the United States support for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza if after two years, negotiations fail to end the conflict.
The Palestinains say they can't wait for another two years.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Abbas and aides misjudged impact of decision
I met Palestinian President Mahnmoud Abbas in Amman on Saturday, one day after he took the decision to defer forwarding the Goldstone report to the U.N. General Assembly for further action against Israel and Hamas, both found as possibly guilty of war crimes during the recent Gaza war.
Abbas was disturbed by the uproar against his decision fueled by Hamas and al-Jazeera satellite television accusing him of treason for burying the report and withdrawing support for further action.
The Palestinian president tried to explain in an exclusive interview his position, insisting he did not withdraw support of the report but that he simply agreed to go along with the position of all other state members of the Human Rights Council to defer a vote for action in March.
http://www.gulfnews.com/Region/Middle_East/10354432.html
"Two days ago, the Americans, Russians, China and the Europeans proposed a delay until March. We said if the rest of the states accept, we will not object to the delay. We asked the rest of the states, they said they don't mind, so the report was delayed," Abbas said in the intereview.
It was obvious that neither Abbas nor his close aides had anticipated the impact of the deferral decision. The entire Palestinian society, including the Fatah leadership and the PLO's Executive Committee criticised Abbas' decision. This was the first time Abbas faced strong criticism across the board. Voices calling on him to step down are coming from every direction.
People lashed out at Abbas and his top negotiator Saeb Erekat in what seemed like suppressed anger and deep frustration over the failure of peace talks with Israel, futile pace policies over the years, and Abbas' decision-making system.
Abbas' misfortunes came after the Palestinians' strong disappointment with U.S. President Barack Obama's abandonment of his demand that Israel halt all settlement construction before final status peace talks resume.
The Palestinian leader who emerged strong after the Fatah elections lost his standing among his people after agreeing to comply with Obama's demand to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York.
Palestinians are wondering, why can't Abbas say no to America. When Abbas became prime minister in 2003 and since he took over the presidency from Yaser Arafat, Abbas, accused of being America's man has felt he has not been supported enough by the U.S.
Even he is asking: What has America given me? I asked for weapons and equipment for the security forces but they have still not complied."
Abbas' top negotiator Saeb Erekat asked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during talks with her in Washington last week why the U.S. was punishing Abbas who was implementing all his obligations required by the roadmap, which include security and incitement.
"What is the president doing wrong," Erekat asked Clinton.
"Nothing," she was quoted as saying by a senior official close to Abbas.
Then, why is it hard for Abbas to say "NO" to America and why is he bearing responsibility for all the mistakes and repetition of mistakes committed by each and every U.S. adminsitration. Why is he not listening to the sound of his own street?
The Palestinian president is expected to address his people in a nationwide speech in which he would apologize for the mistake of agreeing to defer action on Goldstone's report. This was a miscalculated step that is not yet behind him. It's repercussions will spiral and nobody knows where it could lead.
It could be a lesson, but fateful decisions await the Palestinian leadership and Hamas.
Senior Palestinian officials said after the New York summit between Abbas, Netanyahu and Obama during which Obama urged the Palestinians to enter peace talks with Israel without any preconditions, that Arab states encouraged Abbas to refrain from angering Obama and to give him a chance.
Abbas will no enter peace talks without a clear basis and end game, and a timeable for implementation, senior officials said.
The Palestinians feel abandoned by the Arabs whose interests in countering Iran precede those of preserving Jerusalem, and they are divided to the point of self-destruction.
The political collapse has accelerated and both Hamas and Abbas need to study what the next steps are, to look inward and ask themselves, now what?
Abbas was disturbed by the uproar against his decision fueled by Hamas and al-Jazeera satellite television accusing him of treason for burying the report and withdrawing support for further action.
The Palestinian president tried to explain in an exclusive interview his position, insisting he did not withdraw support of the report but that he simply agreed to go along with the position of all other state members of the Human Rights Council to defer a vote for action in March.
http://www.gulfnews.com/Region/Middle_East/10354432.html
"Two days ago, the Americans, Russians, China and the Europeans proposed a delay until March. We said if the rest of the states accept, we will not object to the delay. We asked the rest of the states, they said they don't mind, so the report was delayed," Abbas said in the intereview.
It was obvious that neither Abbas nor his close aides had anticipated the impact of the deferral decision. The entire Palestinian society, including the Fatah leadership and the PLO's Executive Committee criticised Abbas' decision. This was the first time Abbas faced strong criticism across the board. Voices calling on him to step down are coming from every direction.
People lashed out at Abbas and his top negotiator Saeb Erekat in what seemed like suppressed anger and deep frustration over the failure of peace talks with Israel, futile pace policies over the years, and Abbas' decision-making system.
Abbas' misfortunes came after the Palestinians' strong disappointment with U.S. President Barack Obama's abandonment of his demand that Israel halt all settlement construction before final status peace talks resume.
The Palestinian leader who emerged strong after the Fatah elections lost his standing among his people after agreeing to comply with Obama's demand to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York.
Palestinians are wondering, why can't Abbas say no to America. When Abbas became prime minister in 2003 and since he took over the presidency from Yaser Arafat, Abbas, accused of being America's man has felt he has not been supported enough by the U.S.
Even he is asking: What has America given me? I asked for weapons and equipment for the security forces but they have still not complied."
Abbas' top negotiator Saeb Erekat asked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during talks with her in Washington last week why the U.S. was punishing Abbas who was implementing all his obligations required by the roadmap, which include security and incitement.
"What is the president doing wrong," Erekat asked Clinton.
"Nothing," she was quoted as saying by a senior official close to Abbas.
Then, why is it hard for Abbas to say "NO" to America and why is he bearing responsibility for all the mistakes and repetition of mistakes committed by each and every U.S. adminsitration. Why is he not listening to the sound of his own street?
The Palestinian president is expected to address his people in a nationwide speech in which he would apologize for the mistake of agreeing to defer action on Goldstone's report. This was a miscalculated step that is not yet behind him. It's repercussions will spiral and nobody knows where it could lead.
It could be a lesson, but fateful decisions await the Palestinian leadership and Hamas.
Senior Palestinian officials said after the New York summit between Abbas, Netanyahu and Obama during which Obama urged the Palestinians to enter peace talks with Israel without any preconditions, that Arab states encouraged Abbas to refrain from angering Obama and to give him a chance.
Abbas will no enter peace talks without a clear basis and end game, and a timeable for implementation, senior officials said.
The Palestinians feel abandoned by the Arabs whose interests in countering Iran precede those of preserving Jerusalem, and they are divided to the point of self-destruction.
The political collapse has accelerated and both Hamas and Abbas need to study what the next steps are, to look inward and ask themselves, now what?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Is State with provisional borders Obama's plan?
The sense of "High Hopes" that followed U.S. President Barack Obama's election victory has been quickly replaced with "Big Frustration".
Palestinian negotiators and officials who met Obama and other U.S. officials in New York last week returned home depressed and disappointed.
They came back from those meetings with a vague idea of the outlines of the long-promised Obama peace plan. They say the U.S. administration is pushing for relaunching peace talks without any preconditions, without clear terms of reference and the plan is to get the Israelis and Palestinians to open negotiations on the borders, and lean on the Palestinians to accept a Palestinian state with provisional borders, without an agreement on Jerusalem or the refugees.
A state with provisional borders is an option stated in the U.S.-backed roadmap for peace and has been repeatedly rejected by Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas.
The meeting with Obama was cordial but the Palestinians were told Washington tried but failed to get the Israelis to accept a one-year settlement freeze. The U.S. would nevertheless continue to push for a nine-month freeze. They were also told there is no agreement on clear terms of reference for future final status talks.
"We were told that principles mentioned in Obama's U.N. speech are the new terms of reference. We said at least go back to the roadmap, to (former U.S. President Bill) Clinton's parameters as a basis for peace, for a land swap of some 2 or 3 percent of the land, they said no, go back to the negotiations and discuss the terms," one senior Palestinian official said.
Another Palestinian official said Abbas told Obama he could not return to negotiations on those terms.
The Palestinians are in a new dilemma.
Palestinians today start bilateral talks with the Americans in Washington to try to secure clear terms of reference of future talks with Israel, but they know without American pressure on Israel, they will get nowhere and they will enter into a new vicious circle that will not lead to an end of the conflict or even to stability.
The Palestinian leadership is contemplating not returning to negotiations if they don't get this time clear terms of reference for those talks. They are also considering what type of pressure Obama's adminsitration will exert on the Palestinian Authority if they don't.
If they return to negotiations with nothing agreed and with new settlement construction plans announced every day, the Third Intifada will this time be directed towards Abbas and his Authority, not against Israel.
Palestinian negotiators and officials who met Obama and other U.S. officials in New York last week returned home depressed and disappointed.
They came back from those meetings with a vague idea of the outlines of the long-promised Obama peace plan. They say the U.S. administration is pushing for relaunching peace talks without any preconditions, without clear terms of reference and the plan is to get the Israelis and Palestinians to open negotiations on the borders, and lean on the Palestinians to accept a Palestinian state with provisional borders, without an agreement on Jerusalem or the refugees.
A state with provisional borders is an option stated in the U.S.-backed roadmap for peace and has been repeatedly rejected by Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas.
The meeting with Obama was cordial but the Palestinians were told Washington tried but failed to get the Israelis to accept a one-year settlement freeze. The U.S. would nevertheless continue to push for a nine-month freeze. They were also told there is no agreement on clear terms of reference for future final status talks.
"We were told that principles mentioned in Obama's U.N. speech are the new terms of reference. We said at least go back to the roadmap, to (former U.S. President Bill) Clinton's parameters as a basis for peace, for a land swap of some 2 or 3 percent of the land, they said no, go back to the negotiations and discuss the terms," one senior Palestinian official said.
Another Palestinian official said Abbas told Obama he could not return to negotiations on those terms.
The Palestinians are in a new dilemma.
Palestinians today start bilateral talks with the Americans in Washington to try to secure clear terms of reference of future talks with Israel, but they know without American pressure on Israel, they will get nowhere and they will enter into a new vicious circle that will not lead to an end of the conflict or even to stability.
The Palestinian leadership is contemplating not returning to negotiations if they don't get this time clear terms of reference for those talks. They are also considering what type of pressure Obama's adminsitration will exert on the Palestinian Authority if they don't.
If they return to negotiations with nothing agreed and with new settlement construction plans announced every day, the Third Intifada will this time be directed towards Abbas and his Authority, not against Israel.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Are Palestinians disappointed with Obama already?
A U.S. official told me one day after U.S. President Barack Obama hosted a meeting between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York that the demand for a total settlement freeze ahead of reviving peace talks was a "dream".
"This would bring down Netanyahu's government," the official said.
The Palestinians believed, or wanted to believe, that Obama's administration would stick to its demand for a full settlement freeze and would twist Israel's arm into complying before talks on permanent status were renewed. The international community leaders echoed Obama's demand for a total settlement freeze, but the minute the U.S. special envoy George Mitchell and his team agreed to negotiate with Israel on specifics of the settlements issue, by accepting that some construction had to continue, some can be frozen for a few months, and some simply can't be stopped, they fell in Israel's trap.
The settlements issue is no longer the key issue blocking the relaunching of the talks.
Again, the Palestinians want to avoid a clash with the U.S. administration by agreeing to meet while settlements continue.
Actually, the Palestinians are surprised by the speedy and sudden change in American officials' language towards the settlements issue.
Now they know that Barack Obama's impatience with the slow pace of talks that pave the way to final status peace talks will mean they have to accept entering new talks without a settlement freeze.
Abbas and his negotiators are now trying to go to those talks with at least agreed terms of reference, something they tried to do before the launching of the Annapolis talks in 2008, but failed.
Abbas is insisting that Israel respect the Oslo peace deals, the roadmap, the Arab peace initiative, and other past agreements so the sides don't start all over again from scratch.
That is why Palestinian negotiators are insisting that the New York meeting did not mean talks have been revived, and that is why they are seeking a written and clear agreement on the terms of reference of future talks which the U.S. is anxious to announce soon.
In his speech at the U.N. General Assembly today, Abbas urged Israel to accept all past agreements, including the Arab Peace Plan and the roadmap as clear terms o reference of any future, meaningful peace talks.
A Palestinain official said the Palestinians were disappointed with Mitchell and Obama's change of heart on the settlements issue, and they made it clear in meetings with Obama and U.S. officials in New York they seek a clear understanding on the basis of future talks because this time they want those talks to lead to the establishment of a state on all lands occupied in 1967 -- the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and in Gaza Strip.
Abbas and Netanyahu went to the New York reluctantly, each for his own reasons.
Time is running out, and with time there is less common ground between Israel under Netanyahu and the Palestinians.
There are more and more Israelis and even more Palestinains who believe that the conflict would never be resolved if left up to the two parties. Only strong pressure on Israel from its ally the U.S. could bring about a solution. Obama's determination to promptly deal with the Middle East crisis and demand for a total settlement freeze was a sign he might be different from his predecessors who tried and failed. But after failure on the settlements issue, will he also fail on setting clear terms of reference for upcoming talks? Will Obama want peace talks more than the parties themselves?
"This would bring down Netanyahu's government," the official said.
The Palestinians believed, or wanted to believe, that Obama's administration would stick to its demand for a full settlement freeze and would twist Israel's arm into complying before talks on permanent status were renewed. The international community leaders echoed Obama's demand for a total settlement freeze, but the minute the U.S. special envoy George Mitchell and his team agreed to negotiate with Israel on specifics of the settlements issue, by accepting that some construction had to continue, some can be frozen for a few months, and some simply can't be stopped, they fell in Israel's trap.
The settlements issue is no longer the key issue blocking the relaunching of the talks.
Again, the Palestinians want to avoid a clash with the U.S. administration by agreeing to meet while settlements continue.
Actually, the Palestinians are surprised by the speedy and sudden change in American officials' language towards the settlements issue.
Now they know that Barack Obama's impatience with the slow pace of talks that pave the way to final status peace talks will mean they have to accept entering new talks without a settlement freeze.
Abbas and his negotiators are now trying to go to those talks with at least agreed terms of reference, something they tried to do before the launching of the Annapolis talks in 2008, but failed.
Abbas is insisting that Israel respect the Oslo peace deals, the roadmap, the Arab peace initiative, and other past agreements so the sides don't start all over again from scratch.
That is why Palestinian negotiators are insisting that the New York meeting did not mean talks have been revived, and that is why they are seeking a written and clear agreement on the terms of reference of future talks which the U.S. is anxious to announce soon.
In his speech at the U.N. General Assembly today, Abbas urged Israel to accept all past agreements, including the Arab Peace Plan and the roadmap as clear terms o reference of any future, meaningful peace talks.
A Palestinain official said the Palestinians were disappointed with Mitchell and Obama's change of heart on the settlements issue, and they made it clear in meetings with Obama and U.S. officials in New York they seek a clear understanding on the basis of future talks because this time they want those talks to lead to the establishment of a state on all lands occupied in 1967 -- the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and in Gaza Strip.
Abbas and Netanyahu went to the New York reluctantly, each for his own reasons.
Time is running out, and with time there is less common ground between Israel under Netanyahu and the Palestinians.
There are more and more Israelis and even more Palestinains who believe that the conflict would never be resolved if left up to the two parties. Only strong pressure on Israel from its ally the U.S. could bring about a solution. Obama's determination to promptly deal with the Middle East crisis and demand for a total settlement freeze was a sign he might be different from his predecessors who tried and failed. But after failure on the settlements issue, will he also fail on setting clear terms of reference for upcoming talks? Will Obama want peace talks more than the parties themselves?
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Hamas' students
Twenty people were killed and some 120 were injured during a deadly confrontation between Hamas security forces and gunmen from a militant Salafi splinter group, Jund Ansar Allah after the group's leader declared on Friday his neighbourhood in Rafah an Islamic emirate.
The battle at a mosque in Rafah started early Friday and ended Saturday with Hamas declaring the end of the operation that killed Abdel Latif Moussa, leader of Jund Asar Allah, an al-Qaeda-inspired organization.
The group has carried out attacks against Israel, but Hamas chose to ignore their presence until the Salafi group did what Hamas did to Fatah: accused it of being infidels and of eagerness to please the West.
Dismissed Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said after the military operation ended that Jund Ansar Allah took advantage of youth and infused them with “strange ideas” based on acting against so-called atheists in a violent way.
When Hamas violently took over Gaza, Palestinians I interviewed were shocked to see bodies of Fatah men killed by Hamas masked gunmen dragged on the streets and spit at by Hamas gunmen as "athiests". Fatah so-called "infidels" were thrown from rooftops. Others were beaten with sticks until their bones were broken. Nails were drilled in the legs and knees of some Fatah men I spoke to in 2007.
Hamas crushed the Salafi militant group hoping the World would consider it a moderate, Islamic movement that seeks international legitimacy and an authority that can crush pro-Qaeda radicals. Its members have said that the World should engage with Hamas that can impose law and order in Gaza Strip.
A Palestinian businessman in the West Bank city of Ramallah said the fighting between Hamas security forces and Jund Ansar Allah gunmen showed that Hamas' rule in Gaza was no different from any other Arab police state that would stop at nothing to survive.
A politician said it was scary to see how the situation in Gaza, the rule of Hamas, the isolation, poverty and siege, have created militant, radical groups that make Hamas look like a moderate movement.
Since Hamas seized Gaza Strip in June, 2007 by force, it has slowly and cautiously been turning Gaza into an Islamic emirate. It has imposed restrictions on the work of the press. Many journalists simply don't report human rights abuses taking place in Gaza.
Human rights activists say their reports show human rights abuses and cases of torture in the West Bank as well, but violations in Gaza were more systematic.
What happened in Gaza with Jund Ansar Allah may be just the beginning of Hamas' problems with similar hardline Salafi groups that have emerged originally from Hamas disenchanted grassroots.
The battle at a mosque in Rafah started early Friday and ended Saturday with Hamas declaring the end of the operation that killed Abdel Latif Moussa, leader of Jund Asar Allah, an al-Qaeda-inspired organization.
The group has carried out attacks against Israel, but Hamas chose to ignore their presence until the Salafi group did what Hamas did to Fatah: accused it of being infidels and of eagerness to please the West.
Dismissed Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said after the military operation ended that Jund Ansar Allah took advantage of youth and infused them with “strange ideas” based on acting against so-called atheists in a violent way.
When Hamas violently took over Gaza, Palestinians I interviewed were shocked to see bodies of Fatah men killed by Hamas masked gunmen dragged on the streets and spit at by Hamas gunmen as "athiests". Fatah so-called "infidels" were thrown from rooftops. Others were beaten with sticks until their bones were broken. Nails were drilled in the legs and knees of some Fatah men I spoke to in 2007.
Hamas crushed the Salafi militant group hoping the World would consider it a moderate, Islamic movement that seeks international legitimacy and an authority that can crush pro-Qaeda radicals. Its members have said that the World should engage with Hamas that can impose law and order in Gaza Strip.
A Palestinian businessman in the West Bank city of Ramallah said the fighting between Hamas security forces and Jund Ansar Allah gunmen showed that Hamas' rule in Gaza was no different from any other Arab police state that would stop at nothing to survive.
A politician said it was scary to see how the situation in Gaza, the rule of Hamas, the isolation, poverty and siege, have created militant, radical groups that make Hamas look like a moderate movement.
Since Hamas seized Gaza Strip in June, 2007 by force, it has slowly and cautiously been turning Gaza into an Islamic emirate. It has imposed restrictions on the work of the press. Many journalists simply don't report human rights abuses taking place in Gaza.
Human rights activists say their reports show human rights abuses and cases of torture in the West Bank as well, but violations in Gaza were more systematic.
What happened in Gaza with Jund Ansar Allah may be just the beginning of Hamas' problems with similar hardline Salafi groups that have emerged originally from Hamas disenchanted grassroots.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
New generation leads Fatah
Around 05:30 a.m. on Tuesday I started receiving calls from Bethlehem with early results of Fatah's first leadership election in 20 years.
Early results of the the historic Fatah vote showed the group has discarded some 80 percent of its old leaders. It was a clear sign Fatah was determined to rejuvenate the group that lost power to Hamas in 2006.
It was a coup against the old guards who monopolised power for over 20 years and marginalized the local leaders of the West Bank and Gaza.
Hamas has done its best to derail Fatah's first conference in 20 years but the vote took place nevertheless.
Leaders who publicly defy Hamas' forceful control of Gaza such as Mohammad Dahlan, Tayyeb Abdel-Rahim, Tawfiq Tirawi and Hussein al-Sheikh, among others, won seats on Fatah's Central Committee, the group's highest decision-making body.
Fatah officials in Gaza said most if not all voters in Gaza voted for jailed leader Marwan Barghouthi who led the second Intifada, and a possible successor for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Well-known and influential figures from the older generation such as Ahmed Qurie had disappeared from the winners' list, early results showed.
For the first time since its inception in 1965, Yasser Arafat's Fatah is now led by the younger generation from the West Bank and Gaza. The older generation that led the movement in exile and during the past 15 years have now been forced to give way to the young, the bulk of the secular movement.
Early results of the the historic Fatah vote showed the group has discarded some 80 percent of its old leaders. It was a clear sign Fatah was determined to rejuvenate the group that lost power to Hamas in 2006.
It was a coup against the old guards who monopolised power for over 20 years and marginalized the local leaders of the West Bank and Gaza.
Hamas has done its best to derail Fatah's first conference in 20 years but the vote took place nevertheless.
Leaders who publicly defy Hamas' forceful control of Gaza such as Mohammad Dahlan, Tayyeb Abdel-Rahim, Tawfiq Tirawi and Hussein al-Sheikh, among others, won seats on Fatah's Central Committee, the group's highest decision-making body.
Fatah officials in Gaza said most if not all voters in Gaza voted for jailed leader Marwan Barghouthi who led the second Intifada, and a possible successor for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Well-known and influential figures from the older generation such as Ahmed Qurie had disappeared from the winners' list, early results showed.
For the first time since its inception in 1965, Yasser Arafat's Fatah is now led by the younger generation from the West Bank and Gaza. The older generation that led the movement in exile and during the past 15 years have now been forced to give way to the young, the bulk of the secular movement.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Fatah and the government
Restless Fatah candidates running for leadership positions in the secular movement huddled in their hotel rooms with friends and campaigners hours before the results of their first election in 20 years.
Most are anxiously working the phones while the clocks tick away. A few hours and the results would be announced. The fierce campaiging of hundreds of Fatah candidates is over. A new leadership will emerge soon to face challenges and key issues the previous leaders failed to resolve.
These issues include reconciliation with Islamist Hamas and reuniting Gaza with the West Bank, preparing for U.S.-sponsored negotiations with Israel, changing attitudes that led to Fatah's loss to Hamas in the 2006 election, and preparing for parliamentary and presidential elections planned for January.
But most importantly, reforming the internal structure of the mainstream group and prioritizing objectives.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was re-elected Friday as Fatah's leader, said in his speech at the launching of the Fatah Congress that one of Fatah's mistakes was losing its independence as a national movment and melting in the Palestinian Authority's institutions and structures.
Not many in Fatah share his view. Many have participated in the Fatah election hoping to strengthen their movement and regain power. Fatah, which has led the Palestinians for over 40 years, is no longer running the government in the West Bank and has been greatly weakened in Gaza by Hamas.
There were voices before and during the Fatah Congress saying the new Fatah leadership should return to power and take over the government from technocrat Salam Fayyad.
Fayyad has earned world recognition for his reform movement. Confidence in his transparent policies have won the Palestinians billions of dollars in international aid. Fatah has yet to free itself from corruption and mismanagement allegations to secure aid for the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority.
Determined to sway Fatah from pursuing actions to retake the government, Abbas has taken a decision during the Fatah Congress banning the new elected Fatah leaders from taking up governmental positions.
This decision may be contested by Fatah's new leaders. Abbas' message however was clear: The time has come to reassess Fatah's experience and learn from its defeat.
Most are anxiously working the phones while the clocks tick away. A few hours and the results would be announced. The fierce campaiging of hundreds of Fatah candidates is over. A new leadership will emerge soon to face challenges and key issues the previous leaders failed to resolve.
These issues include reconciliation with Islamist Hamas and reuniting Gaza with the West Bank, preparing for U.S.-sponsored negotiations with Israel, changing attitudes that led to Fatah's loss to Hamas in the 2006 election, and preparing for parliamentary and presidential elections planned for January.
But most importantly, reforming the internal structure of the mainstream group and prioritizing objectives.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was re-elected Friday as Fatah's leader, said in his speech at the launching of the Fatah Congress that one of Fatah's mistakes was losing its independence as a national movment and melting in the Palestinian Authority's institutions and structures.
Not many in Fatah share his view. Many have participated in the Fatah election hoping to strengthen their movement and regain power. Fatah, which has led the Palestinians for over 40 years, is no longer running the government in the West Bank and has been greatly weakened in Gaza by Hamas.
There were voices before and during the Fatah Congress saying the new Fatah leadership should return to power and take over the government from technocrat Salam Fayyad.
Fayyad has earned world recognition for his reform movement. Confidence in his transparent policies have won the Palestinians billions of dollars in international aid. Fatah has yet to free itself from corruption and mismanagement allegations to secure aid for the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority.
Determined to sway Fatah from pursuing actions to retake the government, Abbas has taken a decision during the Fatah Congress banning the new elected Fatah leaders from taking up governmental positions.
This decision may be contested by Fatah's new leaders. Abbas' message however was clear: The time has come to reassess Fatah's experience and learn from its defeat.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Abbas reunites Fatah, prevents splits
Bethlehem, West Bank - By constantly intervening and presenting compromise solutions, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas succeeded in preventing a split within Fatah that has been meeting since August 4 to elect a new leadership.
Rivalries between Fatah leaders from Gaza and the West Bank have threatened divisions that would strengthen the Islamists and weaken the national, secular movement.
"A month ago we were on the verge of a split. Signs of that split were beginning to emerge. The world began to mourn Fatah and said it was over...But Fatah is indivisible," Abbas told Fatah some 2,000 members in a speech that contributed to Fatah's reunion.
Abbas' mediation and resolve to prevent splits, as well as his "unity" speech have all contributed to his emergence as Fatah's undisputed leader. Abbas, viewed as a weak leader by many members of his own movement, has asserted himself as a strong leader in control of the divided Fatah group.
"President Abbas has emerged from this conference a strong leader. He has succeeded in avoiding splits and achieving unity," Fatah local leader Ahmad Ghneim said after Abbas' speech which was interrupted by applause. Tears rolled down the cheecks of many Fatah members as Abbas instilled in them a sense of pride and determination to relead the Palestinians after being trounced by Hamas in the 2006 election.
Fatah unanimously chose Abbas as Fatah leader and gave him a new mandate for pursuing his peace policies with Israel.
Today Fatah elects its new leaders. Hamas has cracked down on Fatah members in Gaza and prevented more than 450 of them from travelling to the West Bank city of Bethlehem to take part in the Congress in what Fatah said was an attempt to weaken the secular group. These Fatah members, some detained by Hamas and others placed under house arrest, will however take part in the election process by phone, Fatah officials said.
A new Fatah leadership will be elected but will the new blood reflect a new mentality?
Rivalries between Fatah leaders from Gaza and the West Bank have threatened divisions that would strengthen the Islamists and weaken the national, secular movement.
"A month ago we were on the verge of a split. Signs of that split were beginning to emerge. The world began to mourn Fatah and said it was over...But Fatah is indivisible," Abbas told Fatah some 2,000 members in a speech that contributed to Fatah's reunion.
Abbas' mediation and resolve to prevent splits, as well as his "unity" speech have all contributed to his emergence as Fatah's undisputed leader. Abbas, viewed as a weak leader by many members of his own movement, has asserted himself as a strong leader in control of the divided Fatah group.
"President Abbas has emerged from this conference a strong leader. He has succeeded in avoiding splits and achieving unity," Fatah local leader Ahmad Ghneim said after Abbas' speech which was interrupted by applause. Tears rolled down the cheecks of many Fatah members as Abbas instilled in them a sense of pride and determination to relead the Palestinians after being trounced by Hamas in the 2006 election.
Fatah unanimously chose Abbas as Fatah leader and gave him a new mandate for pursuing his peace policies with Israel.
Today Fatah elects its new leaders. Hamas has cracked down on Fatah members in Gaza and prevented more than 450 of them from travelling to the West Bank city of Bethlehem to take part in the Congress in what Fatah said was an attempt to weaken the secular group. These Fatah members, some detained by Hamas and others placed under house arrest, will however take part in the election process by phone, Fatah officials said.
A new Fatah leadership will be elected but will the new blood reflect a new mentality?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Failure to reform may lead to an internal explosion
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas opened today the first Fatah Congress on Palestinian soil and the first in 20 years with a call for a "new start" that would help Fatah regain its leading role in Palestinian politics.
Sitting on a stage in a hall in the occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem infront of a portrait of the late Yasser Arafat, Abbas admitted mistakes were committed by Fatah such as losing touch with the people, weak performance, an impasse in the peace process, and absence of democratisation within the movement. He urged some 2,200 Fatah members to adopt reforms.
The moderate Palestinian President and Fatah leader reaffirmed resistance legitmised by international law as an option while asking his group members to give peace with Israel a chance, despite all the setbacks and impasses.
Posters of a child carrying a Kalashinkov were glued to the walls of the meeting hall, and Fatah's 1989 interim Charter adopts the eradication of Israel and armed struggle as the only means to liberate Palestine.
But the issue of negotiations with Israel was not a contested issue at the Fatah Congress. Most of the secular group's members back Abbas' call for focusing on popular, peaceful resistance against Jewish settlement expansion.
The issue of prime importance for the younger generation in Fatah was to end their exclusion from decision-making by the older, once-exiled leadership.
The mentality of exclusion of the achievements of the local leaders who have lived under occupation and led the first peaceful Intifada was reflected in Abbas' three-hour speech which left out any reference to the seven-year Intifada of 1987.
"I don't care about the Fatah political program or charter. What I want to see this conference do is give the local leadership the dominate role in the decision-making process. I want to see the local leaders get the majority of seats in the Central Committee (top Fatah body)," a Fatah local leader said.
Statements like this reflect that Fatah has learned little from its political mistakes that led to its defeat to Hamas in the 2006 election and military defeat in 2007 that resulted in losing Gaza to the Islamists. Fatah wants to return to power without a clear agenda. Analysts and diplomats believe Hamas would not forfeit Gaza and seeks to share power with Fatah in the West Bank. Factional rivalries and thirst for power will continue to precede national goals.
On Thursday, the Congress members, a mix of local and exiled members, will elect a new leadership to replace the old guard who have dominated the decision-making bodies of the group for the past 20 years.
The test of the secular group will come after the Congress.
Palestinians now have a leadership crisis. The Palestinians are divided between the two big groups Fatah and Hamas. The other smaller secular groups and indepedents have failed to win people to create a "third" way.
If Fatah fails to reform after the new leadership is elected, and if Hamas continues to control Gaza by force, many Palestinians, including the Fatah grassroots may lose confidence in leaders in both the West Bank and Gaza, and turn against them this time.
Sitting on a stage in a hall in the occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem infront of a portrait of the late Yasser Arafat, Abbas admitted mistakes were committed by Fatah such as losing touch with the people, weak performance, an impasse in the peace process, and absence of democratisation within the movement. He urged some 2,200 Fatah members to adopt reforms.
The moderate Palestinian President and Fatah leader reaffirmed resistance legitmised by international law as an option while asking his group members to give peace with Israel a chance, despite all the setbacks and impasses.
Posters of a child carrying a Kalashinkov were glued to the walls of the meeting hall, and Fatah's 1989 interim Charter adopts the eradication of Israel and armed struggle as the only means to liberate Palestine.
But the issue of negotiations with Israel was not a contested issue at the Fatah Congress. Most of the secular group's members back Abbas' call for focusing on popular, peaceful resistance against Jewish settlement expansion.
The issue of prime importance for the younger generation in Fatah was to end their exclusion from decision-making by the older, once-exiled leadership.
The mentality of exclusion of the achievements of the local leaders who have lived under occupation and led the first peaceful Intifada was reflected in Abbas' three-hour speech which left out any reference to the seven-year Intifada of 1987.
"I don't care about the Fatah political program or charter. What I want to see this conference do is give the local leadership the dominate role in the decision-making process. I want to see the local leaders get the majority of seats in the Central Committee (top Fatah body)," a Fatah local leader said.
Statements like this reflect that Fatah has learned little from its political mistakes that led to its defeat to Hamas in the 2006 election and military defeat in 2007 that resulted in losing Gaza to the Islamists. Fatah wants to return to power without a clear agenda. Analysts and diplomats believe Hamas would not forfeit Gaza and seeks to share power with Fatah in the West Bank. Factional rivalries and thirst for power will continue to precede national goals.
On Thursday, the Congress members, a mix of local and exiled members, will elect a new leadership to replace the old guard who have dominated the decision-making bodies of the group for the past 20 years.
The test of the secular group will come after the Congress.
Palestinians now have a leadership crisis. The Palestinians are divided between the two big groups Fatah and Hamas. The other smaller secular groups and indepedents have failed to win people to create a "third" way.
If Fatah fails to reform after the new leadership is elected, and if Hamas continues to control Gaza by force, many Palestinians, including the Fatah grassroots may lose confidence in leaders in both the West Bank and Gaza, and turn against them this time.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Fatah in desperate need of reform
As Fatah prepares to hold its Sixth Congress in the occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem on August 4, its leaders and members are engaged in feuds to secure leadership positions in decision-making bodies. Few however, are seriously contemplating how a "new" reformed Fatah movement can reflect the new and different political and organizational realities that have taken place since the last Congress was held 20 years ago in Tunis.
The 1989 Fifth Fatah Congress, then headed by Fatah's leader Yasser Arafat and other PLO leaders in exile, adopted the movement's first Basic Law, its interim Charter, as well as a political program, both hardline documents that were drafted at the ouset of the first Intifada, before the signing of the Oslo interim deals with Israel, and before the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/18/1003800/dahlan-fatah-never-recognized-israel
That charter called for "liberating all of Palestine and liquidating the Zionist entity".
It said a popular armed revolution was the only way to liberate Palestine and armed struggle was a strategic choice and not a tactic.
Many things have changed since 1989. The PLO now calls for establishing a state not on all of historical Palestine, but only on some 22 percent of it (the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip). The PLO has reneged on violence and seeks a negotiated settlement to the conflict with Israel.
Some things haven't changed though, such as Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and the besiege of Gaza Strip, and the expansion of Jewish settlements that Palestinians say would prevent the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
The U.S. needs a strong, moderate Fatah to pursue its peace drive.
Fatah, the PLO's largest faction, is desperately in need of reform at a time of renewed hope of progress towards a U.S.-backed Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
Fatah's old guard, mainly leaders who were living in exile before moving to the Palestinian Territories after the Oslo deal in 1994, have monopolised decision-making for 20 years. These are 22 members of Fatah's Central Committee. Some are dead, the rest are over 70 years old. The 122-member Revolutionary Council is made up of people in their fifties and sixties.
The younger local leadership, now in their forties, fifties, and sixties, seek a role in the decision-making process having been excluded since Fatah's inception in 1965.
Fatah, which has the led the Palestinians from 1965 to 2006 when they lost power to Hamas, has constantly been on the defense against allegations of corruption and mismanagement.
Fatah's weakness has brought Hamas to power. For moderate Fatah leader, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the holding of the Sixth Fatah Congress is aimed at "salvaging" Fatah from disintegration and regaining the confidence of the people ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections planned for January 25.
"The Fatah Conference will not tackle political issues. We want to save and strengthen Fatah now, not enter into a vicious circle of whether to change our charter or not. The important thing for us now is to regain Fatah's leading role in society," a senior Fatah official said.
But the world will be watching to see the political direction of the new Fatah leadership. Hardline rhetorics and positions would be viewed as an impediment to the two-state solution.
Fatah moderates are proposing some ammendements to the Fatah Charter that water down insistence on armed struggle as the only liberation means. Some drafted suggestions such as giving the political leadership the power to control the form of struggle to be used and its timing. Others propose appointing a committee from the new elected leadership to study ways to change the Charter", which basically implies shelving the issue.
Fatah grassroots are demoralized and many have lost faith in their movement. Fatah has done little to address issues that led to its defeat to Hamas. The young generation want to see occupation come to an end. They may not be opposed to negotiations with Israel, but their more immediate interest is in strengthening their power base in the West Bank and in defying Hamas to "liberate" Gaza from the Islamist group's grip.
Hamas, which controls Gaza through a systematic crackdown on Fatah, has been weakened by simlar crackdowns in the West Bank by Israel and the Palestinain Authority. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10679.shtml
An Egyptian mediated Fatah-Hamas reconciliation is moving in a vicious circle http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/07/31/world/international-uk-palestinians-hamas.html
Abbas has dispatched two academics and a businessman to Hamas' leadership in Damascus two days ago to mediate an end to the division ahead of planned peace talks with Israel later this year and facilitate elections. The mediators say they are discussing wording of a deal on forming a unity government that could be accepted by both sides.
If reconciliation succeeds and if Fatah holds its reform conference, Fatah may emerge stronger. It would also be an indication that Hamas may be seriously debating whether its continued control of Gaza was harming its popularity and that it might affect its future standing in elections.
The 1989 Fifth Fatah Congress, then headed by Fatah's leader Yasser Arafat and other PLO leaders in exile, adopted the movement's first Basic Law, its interim Charter, as well as a political program, both hardline documents that were drafted at the ouset of the first Intifada, before the signing of the Oslo interim deals with Israel, and before the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/18/1003800/dahlan-fatah-never-recognized-israel
That charter called for "liberating all of Palestine and liquidating the Zionist entity".
It said a popular armed revolution was the only way to liberate Palestine and armed struggle was a strategic choice and not a tactic.
Many things have changed since 1989. The PLO now calls for establishing a state not on all of historical Palestine, but only on some 22 percent of it (the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip). The PLO has reneged on violence and seeks a negotiated settlement to the conflict with Israel.
Some things haven't changed though, such as Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and the besiege of Gaza Strip, and the expansion of Jewish settlements that Palestinians say would prevent the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
The U.S. needs a strong, moderate Fatah to pursue its peace drive.
Fatah, the PLO's largest faction, is desperately in need of reform at a time of renewed hope of progress towards a U.S.-backed Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
Fatah's old guard, mainly leaders who were living in exile before moving to the Palestinian Territories after the Oslo deal in 1994, have monopolised decision-making for 20 years. These are 22 members of Fatah's Central Committee. Some are dead, the rest are over 70 years old. The 122-member Revolutionary Council is made up of people in their fifties and sixties.
The younger local leadership, now in their forties, fifties, and sixties, seek a role in the decision-making process having been excluded since Fatah's inception in 1965.
Fatah, which has the led the Palestinians from 1965 to 2006 when they lost power to Hamas, has constantly been on the defense against allegations of corruption and mismanagement.
Fatah's weakness has brought Hamas to power. For moderate Fatah leader, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the holding of the Sixth Fatah Congress is aimed at "salvaging" Fatah from disintegration and regaining the confidence of the people ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections planned for January 25.
"The Fatah Conference will not tackle political issues. We want to save and strengthen Fatah now, not enter into a vicious circle of whether to change our charter or not. The important thing for us now is to regain Fatah's leading role in society," a senior Fatah official said.
But the world will be watching to see the political direction of the new Fatah leadership. Hardline rhetorics and positions would be viewed as an impediment to the two-state solution.
Fatah moderates are proposing some ammendements to the Fatah Charter that water down insistence on armed struggle as the only liberation means. Some drafted suggestions such as giving the political leadership the power to control the form of struggle to be used and its timing. Others propose appointing a committee from the new elected leadership to study ways to change the Charter", which basically implies shelving the issue.
Fatah grassroots are demoralized and many have lost faith in their movement. Fatah has done little to address issues that led to its defeat to Hamas. The young generation want to see occupation come to an end. They may not be opposed to negotiations with Israel, but their more immediate interest is in strengthening their power base in the West Bank and in defying Hamas to "liberate" Gaza from the Islamist group's grip.
Hamas, which controls Gaza through a systematic crackdown on Fatah, has been weakened by simlar crackdowns in the West Bank by Israel and the Palestinain Authority. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10679.shtml
An Egyptian mediated Fatah-Hamas reconciliation is moving in a vicious circle http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/07/31/world/international-uk-palestinians-hamas.html
Abbas has dispatched two academics and a businessman to Hamas' leadership in Damascus two days ago to mediate an end to the division ahead of planned peace talks with Israel later this year and facilitate elections. The mediators say they are discussing wording of a deal on forming a unity government that could be accepted by both sides.
If reconciliation succeeds and if Fatah holds its reform conference, Fatah may emerge stronger. It would also be an indication that Hamas may be seriously debating whether its continued control of Gaza was harming its popularity and that it might affect its future standing in elections.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Fayyad's international vote of confidence
Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Prime Minister tonight earned what he described as an international "huge vote of confidence" when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced through video conference from Washington the delivery of $200m in budgetary support to the cash-strapped, donor-dependant Palestinian Authority.
Clinton said the United States has chosen to disburse the funds directly to the Palestinian Authority's treasury as a result of Fayyad's success in undertaking comprehensive reform and his "exceptional two-year track record" of managing funds in an accountable and transparent manner.
The U.S. Consul in Jerusalem Jacob Walles, who signed the agreement to deliver the aid package with Fayyad in Ramallah, said the economic aid to the PA did not replace his country's efforts to reach a political settlement. U.S. envoy George Mitchell would arrive next week as part of efforts to resume deadlocked Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
The U.S. was the largest single donor to the Palestinians in 2008, committing more than $600 in aid at a time when Fayyad was struggling to overcome a financial crisis that almost paralyzed the PA. The situation was aggravated by Israel's war in Gaza.
The PA has reached its borrowing limit after borrowing $350 million from private banks to meet its monthly obligations which include paying salaries of more than 150,000 government workers in the West Bank and Hamas-ruled Gaza.
Not all the funds promised for budgetary support at several donor conferences have materialized.
Western diplomats and Palestinian officials say many Arab donors have been not been forthcoming in helping Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Authority to avoid taking sides in his fight with Hamas and to apply pressure on the two sides to reconcile.
Hamas doesn't seem to be suffering from cash shortage despite the long siege and international isolation imposed on Gaza. It is the people who suffer, both in the West Bank and Gaza.
I asked Fayyad during the press conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah following Clinton's announcement of aid disbursement how much the Arabs have paid. He said $95 million, ONLY 16 percent of a total of $606 million in foreign aid received by the PA in 2009.
Fayyad said the budget deficit was $1.5 billion.
Abbas has recently said in an interview to al-Falastiniya Television that Arab reluctance to help the PA meet its financial obligations and their so-called "neutrality" by not publicly blaming the side that captured Gaza by force was not helping reconciliation efforts.
Reconciliation efforts are moving in a vicious circle. The infighting however, is not confined to Hamas and Fatah.
As Fatah prepares to hold its conference on August 4 to elect a new leadership, Fatah candidates for leadership positions are engaged in fierce rivalries.
Fatah has run the affairs of the Palestinians for decades but its humiliating defeat by Hamas in the 2006 elections and Abbas' formation of a government led by Fayyad, a technocrat, has alarmed many Fatah officials. Despite their divisions, many seem to be united in their quest to return to power.
With Gaza under Hamas rule, they want to return to power in the West Bank and lead the government there. After the Fatah conference, Fayyad or any other prime minister will have to implement Fatah's program, I've heard several say.
Great. But have the rest of the Palestinians, those not affiliated with Hamas or Fatah, seen a real reform process taking place within Fatah? Have those who voted for Hamas, not out of ideology but to punish Fatah for alleged corruption and mismanagement, sensed that Fatah has learned from its mistakes that led to the Hamas takeover of Gaza?
The Palestinians and the entire world will be waiting to see whether the new Fatah leadership will return to its people and bridge those gaps that led to its loss.
Fayyad has earned the respect of the international community for putting in place systems of transparency. The aim, he says, is to build the infrastructure of statehood. So far, his efforts seem to be backed by the Western world but undermined by Hamas, Fatah, and the Arabs.
Clinton said the United States has chosen to disburse the funds directly to the Palestinian Authority's treasury as a result of Fayyad's success in undertaking comprehensive reform and his "exceptional two-year track record" of managing funds in an accountable and transparent manner.
The U.S. Consul in Jerusalem Jacob Walles, who signed the agreement to deliver the aid package with Fayyad in Ramallah, said the economic aid to the PA did not replace his country's efforts to reach a political settlement. U.S. envoy George Mitchell would arrive next week as part of efforts to resume deadlocked Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
The U.S. was the largest single donor to the Palestinians in 2008, committing more than $600 in aid at a time when Fayyad was struggling to overcome a financial crisis that almost paralyzed the PA. The situation was aggravated by Israel's war in Gaza.
The PA has reached its borrowing limit after borrowing $350 million from private banks to meet its monthly obligations which include paying salaries of more than 150,000 government workers in the West Bank and Hamas-ruled Gaza.
Not all the funds promised for budgetary support at several donor conferences have materialized.
Western diplomats and Palestinian officials say many Arab donors have been not been forthcoming in helping Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Authority to avoid taking sides in his fight with Hamas and to apply pressure on the two sides to reconcile.
Hamas doesn't seem to be suffering from cash shortage despite the long siege and international isolation imposed on Gaza. It is the people who suffer, both in the West Bank and Gaza.
I asked Fayyad during the press conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah following Clinton's announcement of aid disbursement how much the Arabs have paid. He said $95 million, ONLY 16 percent of a total of $606 million in foreign aid received by the PA in 2009.
Fayyad said the budget deficit was $1.5 billion.
Abbas has recently said in an interview to al-Falastiniya Television that Arab reluctance to help the PA meet its financial obligations and their so-called "neutrality" by not publicly blaming the side that captured Gaza by force was not helping reconciliation efforts.
Reconciliation efforts are moving in a vicious circle. The infighting however, is not confined to Hamas and Fatah.
As Fatah prepares to hold its conference on August 4 to elect a new leadership, Fatah candidates for leadership positions are engaged in fierce rivalries.
Fatah has run the affairs of the Palestinians for decades but its humiliating defeat by Hamas in the 2006 elections and Abbas' formation of a government led by Fayyad, a technocrat, has alarmed many Fatah officials. Despite their divisions, many seem to be united in their quest to return to power.
With Gaza under Hamas rule, they want to return to power in the West Bank and lead the government there. After the Fatah conference, Fayyad or any other prime minister will have to implement Fatah's program, I've heard several say.
Great. But have the rest of the Palestinians, those not affiliated with Hamas or Fatah, seen a real reform process taking place within Fatah? Have those who voted for Hamas, not out of ideology but to punish Fatah for alleged corruption and mismanagement, sensed that Fatah has learned from its mistakes that led to the Hamas takeover of Gaza?
The Palestinians and the entire world will be waiting to see whether the new Fatah leadership will return to its people and bridge those gaps that led to its loss.
Fayyad has earned the respect of the international community for putting in place systems of transparency. The aim, he says, is to build the infrastructure of statehood. So far, his efforts seem to be backed by the Western world but undermined by Hamas, Fatah, and the Arabs.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Peaceful Activism
Every Friday, since 2005, Palestinians from the village of B'ilin together with international and Israeli activists tirelessly have held non-violent demonstrations against the confiscation of almost half of the village lands for the Wall and settlement expansion.
These demonstrations usually turn out violent when Israeli soldiers confront the protesters. Night raids and arrests follow. Activisits built a symbolic grave on the spot where Bassem Abu Rahmah, 30, was shot and killed by an Israeli bullet in B'ilin on April 19, this year.
Luisa Morgantini, an activist and a leading member of the European Parliament has taken part in many of B'ilin's peaceful protests. She wrote in the Italian paper Liberazione on July 19 that the Israeli reaction to peaceful demonstrations was not primarily aimed at physically neutralizing the activists, "but also to spread terror amongst the inhabitants of the village of Bil’in, 1,800 residents, in order to stop all kind of activity of non violent resistance, that become an example also for other realities of the occupied West Bank such as Nil'in and Ma'asara, whose land continue to be confiscated by the wall."
Bi'ilin, like N'ilin before it, has become a symbol of peaceful resistance. Palestinians have emerged exhausted from a seven-year-old Intifada where arms were used in an unequal balance of power with the Israeli army. Some, like the people of several villages, have reverted to peaceful demonstrations to confront what they see as injustice and safeguard what is left of their land.
Some of my Israeli friends called me last week to express joy at seeing Nablus --which only a few months ago was a hotbed for violence and a stronghold for armed militants -- regain normalcy and people were celebrating the improvement of their economy following the easing of travel restrictions through the two checkpoints that impede travel.
If the aim is to stop all form of non-violent resistance, one should not forget that Hamas was created as a military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood before the first Intifada of 1987 when Fatah and other PLO factions were engaged in armed resistance while the Islamists were passive, working in charities and preaching. Young Muslim activists then pressured the Muslim Brotherhood to join the fight.
How long will the Palestinian non-violence proponents adhere to their peaceful activism if the Wall keeps snaking deeply into their lands and if settlements and checkpoints carve up the West Bank into separate enclaves?
Will the two sides, Israelis and Palestinians continue to be locked in battles in which neither side emerges the winner?
These demonstrations usually turn out violent when Israeli soldiers confront the protesters. Night raids and arrests follow. Activisits built a symbolic grave on the spot where Bassem Abu Rahmah, 30, was shot and killed by an Israeli bullet in B'ilin on April 19, this year.
Luisa Morgantini, an activist and a leading member of the European Parliament has taken part in many of B'ilin's peaceful protests. She wrote in the Italian paper Liberazione on July 19 that the Israeli reaction to peaceful demonstrations was not primarily aimed at physically neutralizing the activists, "but also to spread terror amongst the inhabitants of the village of Bil’in, 1,800 residents, in order to stop all kind of activity of non violent resistance, that become an example also for other realities of the occupied West Bank such as Nil'in and Ma'asara, whose land continue to be confiscated by the wall."
Bi'ilin, like N'ilin before it, has become a symbol of peaceful resistance. Palestinians have emerged exhausted from a seven-year-old Intifada where arms were used in an unequal balance of power with the Israeli army. Some, like the people of several villages, have reverted to peaceful demonstrations to confront what they see as injustice and safeguard what is left of their land.
Some of my Israeli friends called me last week to express joy at seeing Nablus --which only a few months ago was a hotbed for violence and a stronghold for armed militants -- regain normalcy and people were celebrating the improvement of their economy following the easing of travel restrictions through the two checkpoints that impede travel.
If the aim is to stop all form of non-violent resistance, one should not forget that Hamas was created as a military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood before the first Intifada of 1987 when Fatah and other PLO factions were engaged in armed resistance while the Islamists were passive, working in charities and preaching. Young Muslim activists then pressured the Muslim Brotherhood to join the fight.
How long will the Palestinian non-violence proponents adhere to their peaceful activism if the Wall keeps snaking deeply into their lands and if settlements and checkpoints carve up the West Bank into separate enclaves?
Will the two sides, Israelis and Palestinians continue to be locked in battles in which neither side emerges the winner?
Friday, July 17, 2009
The Palestinians are still waiting to see Obama's peace plan
Six months after U.S. President Barack Obama took office, the Palestinains are still waiting for his long-promised peace plan.
In fact, the enthusiasm in Palestinian circles that accompanied his election and the hope created by comments made by officials in his adminsitration reflecting a determination to see "all" Jewish settlement activity stopped, is gradually giving way to some doubt that the U.S. President may be trying to reach an arrangement with Israel to help revive deadlocked peace talks.
"Where is this plan we have been promised? We hear of a crisis between Israel and the United States over settlements, but we're worried Obama may cave in to pressure and allow for some settlement growth here and there, or understand Israel's jusitification for keeping settlement blocs," a senior Palestinian politician said.
Haaretz' diplomatic editor Aluf Benn wrote an article on Friday titled: "Don't worry Netanyahu, Obama peace plan is still far off". http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100767.html
"All the reports emanating from Washington indicate that Obama will not issue a detailed peace plan any time soon. Netanyahu's fear - that Washington will demand that he withdraw from all the territories and divide Jerusalem - will not become reality in the near future," Aluf Benn wrote.
But senior Western diplomats told me this week that the Palestinians will not have to wait too long for Obama to act.
One diplomat said the United States was working on creating a positive environment for reviving peace talks that have been suspended since the Israeli elections took place and brought a right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu who accepted the two-state solution only with Obama breathing down his neck.
The Americans want to get what they call "deposits" from Israel, the Arabs, and the Palestinians, steps that will bring the sides closer to implement commitmnets under the 2003"road map" for peace, and additional normalization steps by Arabs to convince the hard-line Israeli government to join.
"Israel has offered something on a settlement freeze but Washington is pushing for a commitment closer to Israel's road map commitments, mainly a complete settlement freeze," the Western diplomat said.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is not happy with Obama's focus on the settlements issue.
"Instead of a political process, the issue of settlement construction commands the agenda between the United States and Israel. This is a mistake that serves neither the process with the Palestinians nor relations between Israel and the Arab world. Moreover, it has the potential to greatly shake U.S.-Israeli relations," Olmert said in an article published in todays Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071603584.html
Many Arab states are willing to take some normalization steps towards Israel such as opening their closed offices in Israel and allowing Israel to open commercial offices on their soil, give permission to Israeli planes to use their airspace, etc but not Saudi Arabia, Arab and Western diplomats said. The U.S. administration is still pressing Saudi Arabia to show flexibility or at least to give the nod to the Arabs to go ahead.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to stop incitement against Israel by the Palestinians, pursue security measures, and retract his precondition not to sit down with Netanyahu until the latter freezes all settlement activity.
The Palestinians hope Washington will succeed in its endeavors with Israel otherwise Abbas's already weak standing among his own people will become worse. He will have to come up with a very good excuse to explain why he would sit with Netanyahu whose Bar-Ilan university speech reminded people of Golda Meir's era when she said the Palestinian people did not exist.
"There's going to be a package. (Obama's envoy George) Mitchell will wrap things up fairly soon and we'll say: Let's go ahead, the talks will start," a senior diplomat said.
American officials say Obama may start talks in one of two months from now and his timeline for ending those negotiations is 18 months, with or without deposits from Israel, the Arabs, or the Palestinians.
In fact, the enthusiasm in Palestinian circles that accompanied his election and the hope created by comments made by officials in his adminsitration reflecting a determination to see "all" Jewish settlement activity stopped, is gradually giving way to some doubt that the U.S. President may be trying to reach an arrangement with Israel to help revive deadlocked peace talks.
"Where is this plan we have been promised? We hear of a crisis between Israel and the United States over settlements, but we're worried Obama may cave in to pressure and allow for some settlement growth here and there, or understand Israel's jusitification for keeping settlement blocs," a senior Palestinian politician said.
Haaretz' diplomatic editor Aluf Benn wrote an article on Friday titled: "Don't worry Netanyahu, Obama peace plan is still far off". http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100767.html
"All the reports emanating from Washington indicate that Obama will not issue a detailed peace plan any time soon. Netanyahu's fear - that Washington will demand that he withdraw from all the territories and divide Jerusalem - will not become reality in the near future," Aluf Benn wrote.
But senior Western diplomats told me this week that the Palestinians will not have to wait too long for Obama to act.
One diplomat said the United States was working on creating a positive environment for reviving peace talks that have been suspended since the Israeli elections took place and brought a right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu who accepted the two-state solution only with Obama breathing down his neck.
The Americans want to get what they call "deposits" from Israel, the Arabs, and the Palestinians, steps that will bring the sides closer to implement commitmnets under the 2003"road map" for peace, and additional normalization steps by Arabs to convince the hard-line Israeli government to join.
"Israel has offered something on a settlement freeze but Washington is pushing for a commitment closer to Israel's road map commitments, mainly a complete settlement freeze," the Western diplomat said.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is not happy with Obama's focus on the settlements issue.
"Instead of a political process, the issue of settlement construction commands the agenda between the United States and Israel. This is a mistake that serves neither the process with the Palestinians nor relations between Israel and the Arab world. Moreover, it has the potential to greatly shake U.S.-Israeli relations," Olmert said in an article published in todays Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071603584.html
Many Arab states are willing to take some normalization steps towards Israel such as opening their closed offices in Israel and allowing Israel to open commercial offices on their soil, give permission to Israeli planes to use their airspace, etc but not Saudi Arabia, Arab and Western diplomats said. The U.S. administration is still pressing Saudi Arabia to show flexibility or at least to give the nod to the Arabs to go ahead.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to stop incitement against Israel by the Palestinians, pursue security measures, and retract his precondition not to sit down with Netanyahu until the latter freezes all settlement activity.
The Palestinians hope Washington will succeed in its endeavors with Israel otherwise Abbas's already weak standing among his own people will become worse. He will have to come up with a very good excuse to explain why he would sit with Netanyahu whose Bar-Ilan university speech reminded people of Golda Meir's era when she said the Palestinian people did not exist.
"There's going to be a package. (Obama's envoy George) Mitchell will wrap things up fairly soon and we'll say: Let's go ahead, the talks will start," a senior diplomat said.
American officials say Obama may start talks in one of two months from now and his timeline for ending those negotiations is 18 months, with or without deposits from Israel, the Arabs, or the Palestinians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)