And the Winner is - Hamas!
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal are scheduled to meet in Cairo next week to discuss ways of ending the power struggle between their two parties and the formation of a Palestinian unity government.
The talks between the two men will focus on the establishment of a unity government that would be dominated by "independent" figures and whose task would be to prepare for new presidential and parliamentary elections.
The meeting between Abbas and Mashaal comes more than six months after the two sides announced that they had reached, with the help of the Egyptians, a "reconciliation" agreement that would put an end to the continued rift between Hamas and Fatah.
But ever since the agreement was announced on May 4 in Cairo, Hamas and Fatah have failed to implement it on the ground.
The main reason why the agreement was never implemented was Hamas's strong opposition to the appointment of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad as head of the proposed unity government.
Hamas says it will never accept Fayyad because of his responsibility for the security crackdown on Hamas supporters in the West Bank and his close ties with Israel and the US. Many Palestinians also do not accept Fayyad because he was never part of the "revolution": he did not spend even one day in Israeli prison.
But now Abbas and Fatah seem to have changed their mind about Fayyad. In a series of secret meetings during the past few days in the Egyptian capital, Fatah officials informed their Hamas counterparts that Abbas was no longer insisting on the nomination of Fayyad.
In other words, Abbas decided to throw Fayyad under the bus for the sake of "unity" with Hamas.
There is no ignoring the significance of the timing of Abbas's decision to resume his efforts to seek unity with Hamas. Abbas's decision came shortly after he realized that the Palestinian Authority had failed to muster enough support in the international community for its application for membership in the UN.
By expressing his readiness to get rid of Fayyad in favor of a new partnership with Hamas, Abbas is seeking to retaliate against the US, Israel and some European countries that did not support his statehood bid.
Abbas's message to the leaders of these countries is: Because you foiled my plan to seek membership of a Palestinian state in the UN, I will punish you by joining forces with Hamas.
The biggest winner will be Hamas --- not Abbas. Any unity deal would only bolster Hamas's position, largely because it would give legitimacy to the Islamist movement.
Ironically, Abbas's overtures towards Hamas will ultimately undermine him and his West Bank authority. By striking deals with Hamas and inviting its representatives to sit in the proposed unity government, Abbas is acting along the lines of the saying: "If you can't beat them, join them."
Since 2006, Abbas and Fatah have been making every effort to get rid of Hamas, but with no success. Even the massive security crackdown on Hamas supporters in the West Bank by Abbas's security forces has failed to weaken the movement.
Abbas has chosen the path of unity with Hamas not only because he wants to tease the Americans, Israelis and Europeans, but also because he wants to cover up for the failure of his campaign to internationalize the conflict through the UN with the hope of imposing a solution on Israel.
He is basically hoping that instead of being denounced and ridiculed by Palestinians for the failure of the statehood bid, he will now be praised for having "reunited" the Palestinians.
By joining forces with Hamas, however, Fatah is once again digging its grave with its own hands. Does Fatah or anyone else have guarantees that Hamas will not score another victory in the new elections that Abbas is now hoping to hold in the Palestinian territories sometime early next year?
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Where Turkey stands today is a perfect example of how, when Islamists -- mild or otherwise -- rule a county, even the most basic liberties are systematically suppressed.
"A climate of fear has emerged in Turkey." — Hasam Kilic, President, Turkey's Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor demanded a heavier penalty for the victim than for her torturers.
The European Commission identified government interference in the judiciary and bans imposed on social media as the major sources of concern regarding Turkey's candidacy for full membership.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."