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 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."
by Alan M. Dershowitz