What Palestinians Want
As Palestinians wonder about what they could do next, they would do well to remember that their starting point is a double failure shaped over the past decade.
The first of the two failures is that of Al Fatah, which has dominated Palestinian politics since the 1960s and exercised control over the Palestinian Authority in the wake of the Oslo accords.
At some point in its history, Al Fatah may well have devoted its energies to a grand, though so far futile, struggle to create a Palestinian state. Since 1991, however, Al Fatah has been principally interested in one goal: its own survival and the prosperity of the elite that sustains it. With the late Yasser Arafat showing the way, Al Fatah has kicked its former national aspirations into tall grass. Each time its narrow interests clashed with the broader interest of the national struggle, Al Fatah clung firmly to the former and jettisoned the latter.
Al Fatah, and beyond it the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which it controls, have danced to every tune of the day in the same way western teen-agers go for pop "tubes" of the season.
The Oslo accords were designed to drown the fish, that is to say bury the national aspirations of the Palestinians under tons of paper. The PLO adopted them with excessive zeal.
Then we had the so-called Road Map, presented by President George W Bush, a kind of political bikini, revealing everything except the essential. Again, the PLO, and Al Fatah, bought into it without a flutter.
Finally, we had the "two states" formula, also presented by Bush. The PLO adopted this as a slogan but did all it could to prevent any step towards achieving it.
Arafat's departure from the scene did not change the essentials.
The Palestinian Authority has continued to be mired in corruption of a kind and scale that, if even partially true, would put the Mafia to shame.
Worse still, Al Fatah and the PLO have adopted a reactive posture on the central issue of the Palestinians' future.
They have endorsed every so-called peace initiative but have never come out with one of their own. Their strategy is simple: keep talking to the Israelis, make the Americans happy with a few gestures, and bamboozle the Arabs and the Europeans into loosening their purse strings. Above all, do not forget to line your own pockets.
When pressed to take a position, PLO officials often come out with the insipid assertion that they want nothing but "the full implementation of United Nations' resolutions". This is the lazy man's answer, a position taken by anyone without a clue about the issue. The youngest of those resolutions is already 40 years old. Isn't it time to admit that they are not going to be implemented anytime soon?
Al Fatah and the PLO have failed to develop a strategy either for peace or for war. They live on a day-to-day basis, passengers of a phantom ship caught in the fog, going nowhere. The price is paid by ordinary Palestinians whose daily lives have been transformed into infernal experiences played out in the context of countless personal tragedies.
The second failure is the work of Hamas, the Islamist movement that seized power in Gaza in a bloody putsch and provoked the recent costly fight with the Israelis.
The way it behaves, Hamas appears not to be interested in Palestine as such. It opposes the "two states" formula and rejects the nationalist discourse in favor of the rhetoric of global jihad. It is the only major Palestinian political organization whose name and acronym include no mention of Palestine. If it has any discernible aim, it is the destruction of Israel, rather than the creation of a Palestinian state.
When it comes to corruption, Hamas has little to envy Al Fatah. The only difference is that Hamas-style corruption is slightly more "democratic" in the sense that boasts a bigger clientele.
If Al Fatah regards Palestine as a business, Hamas sees it as a cause. What is missing in both cases is the perception of Palestine as a national aspiration unsullied by business considerations and rising above ideology.
Dependent on Israel and the United States, Al Fatah is no longer capable of developing an independent strategy. It cannot rescue the issue of Palestine from becoming a sideshow in the broader power struggle in the Middle East.
Hamas, for its part, has become dependent on the Khomeinist regime in Tehran. This is how a commentator, writing for the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), out it in an analysis: "Hamas is applying the lessons taught by Imam Khomeini . Its war is our war, the war of the Islamic Republic against World Arrogance."
When Hamas and Al Fatah fight, Palestinians kill one another in a proxy war on behalf of the Islamic Republic in Iran and the United States. When pronounced with a foreign accent, Palestine, the magic word supposed to unite all Palestinians, divides them.
The Khomeinist regime regards Palestine as part of its glacis, and is trying to re-arm Hamas. The Western powers, led by the US, try to solve the problem by signing larger and larger checks. They do not realize that it is not money that Palestinians want but freedom and self-determination. Most Palestinians would rather be poor in their own state than rich under foreign occupation.
Can the Palestinians regain their independence of action? Can they stop fighting one another on behalf of foreign powers? Can they develop a national strategy that could be pursued in the political and diplomatic arena?
Both Al Fatah and Hamas have failed. Neither has anything to offer the Palestinians besides more suffering and disillusionment. A re-composition of the Palestinian political scene has become an urgent necessity. The Palestinians need a strategy that reflects their own national interests rather than the interests of rival powers in the region.
Amir Taheri's new book, "The Persian Night", is published by Encounter Books, New York and London.
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."