What Is Really Blocking the Peace Process?
It is clear that neither Hamas nor Fatah is interested in achieving unity -- each for its own reasons. Then there are radicals in the Arab and Islamic countries -- such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis -- who will never accept Israel's right to exist.
Hamas and Fatah are lying not only to their people, but also to the rest of the world -- something the international community should take into consideration when dealing with the two parties.
Hamas is now holding US President Barack Obama responsible for the failure of the latest attempt to achieve reconciliation between the Islamist movement and Fatah.
Hamas's accusation came shortly after another round of talks with Fatah in Cairo last week failed to produce agreement on the formation of a new Palestinian unity government and holding presidential and parliamentary elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Hamas spokesman claimed that Fatah was afraid of reaching any agreement weeks before Obama's planned visit to the region. Obama is scheduled to visit the Middle East in late March.
Hamas claims that the US Administration has been exerting pressure on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is also head of Fatah, to refrain from signing any deal with Hamas.
"Obama's planned visit has had a negative impact on the Palestinian reconciliation discussions," said Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri.
Fatah, for its part, has denied the charges, insisting that Obama's planned visit had nothing to do with the the failure of the talks with Hamas.
Before making the allegation against Obama, Hamas had also accused Israel of seeking to foil "Palestinian unity" by arresting scores of Hamas supporters and officials in the West Bank.
This was not the first time that Israel had arrested Hamas members -- the arrests are, in fact, part of an ongoing effort by the IDF to prevent Hamas from taking control over the West Bank.
So the latest arrests are being used by Hamas as a justification to blame Israel for the failure of the unity talks.
The charges against the US and Israel are seen by many Palestinians as yet another attempt by Hamas to blame everyone but itself for the failure of the reconciliation talks.
Hamas has had many opportunities to end the dispute with Fatah -- long before Washington announced Obama's plan to visit the region and the IDF arrest of Hamas members.
But instead of accepting responsibility for the failure of the reconciliation talks, Hamas prefers to blame the Americans and Israelis.
Hamas should admit that it is not interested in making peace with Fatah largely because it does not want to be accused of endorsing the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution.
Fatah also has been trying to avoid responsibility for the failure of the talks, with its leaders claiming that "outside forces" have been putting pressure on Hamas to refrain from reaching any agreement between the two rival parties.
When Fatah leaders talk about "outside forces," they are referring to Iran, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood, which back Hamas politically, financially and militarily.
Najat Abu Baker, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said this week that both Hamas and Fatah are lying to the Palestinians. She said that neither party was interested in ending the ongoing dispute and achieving unity.
Many Palestinians seem to share Abu Baker's view about the lies of Hamas and Fatah. Today, it is clearer than ever that neither Hamas nor Fatah is interested in achieving unity -- each for its own reasons.
For Hamas, ending the dispute means the Islamist movement would have to cede exclusive control over the Gaza Strip -- an area that has been turned into a semi-independent Islamic emirate over the past five years.
As for Fatah, unity with Hamas means paving the way for the Islamist movement to extend its control to the West Bank -- something Abbas and his supporters are afraid of and cannot afford.
Unity with Hamas also means that the Islamist movement would gain even more legitimacy among Palestinians and the international community. Again, this is something Fatah can never allow to happen.
What Obama and the rest of the international community need to understand is that the Palestinians already have two separate entities -- with social, political and religious observance and ideologies that totally conflict.
The "moderate" entity, led by Fatah, says it wants 100% of all the lands captured by Israel in 1967; Hamas and the radicals continue to insist on 100% of "all Palestine, from the river to the sea." Why should Hamas give way?
By the way, Fatah's public endorsement of the two-state solution does not necessarily mean it has abandoned the phased plan -- namely, take whatever you can now and fight in the future to get the rest.
Even if Mahmoud Abbas agrees to return to the negotiating table with Israel, it is obvious that any agreement he reaches will be automatically rejected by the radicals.
The radicals in this instance are not only Hamas and Islamic Jihad. There are also radicals within Abbas's Fatah faction -- in addition to non-Islamist terror groups, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Then there are the radicals in the Arab and Islamic countries, such as Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis, who will never accept Israel's right to exist.
The best Obama and Israel can hope for is some kind of an interim agreement with Abbas, who knows that he does not even have a mandate from his people to make concessions to Israel: his term in office expired in 2009.
Reader comments on this item
|So True [13 words]||Ken Kelso||Feb 22, 2013 14:21|
|What peace process? [169 words]||Bart Benschop||Feb 19, 2013 21:17|
Comment on this item
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.
by Irfan Al-Alawi
"Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi" is Abu Du'a, a follower of the late Osama Bin Laden. By adding the name "Al-Qurayshi" in his current alias, he is also seeking to affirm descent from Muhammad.
The allegation of theological sovereignty over all Sunnis extends to Indonesia and Morocco. The idea that the borders between Syria and Iraq will be dissolved by the new "caliphate" defies all Islamic theology and history. As the Qur'an states, "Allah "made the nations and tribes different." (49:13) Syria and Iraq have been distinct for millennia.
The "Islamic State" seeks to obliterate these diverse identities by expelling or killing all Shias and Sunni Sufis. And it does not invoke the Ottoman caliphate in its propaganda, demonstrating decisively the fake nature of the "Islamic State."
A caliphate is obsolete and the "Islamic State" is totalitarian. All Sunnis need to repudiate them soundly, even by force of arms.