- HC: I’ve just been back in touch with the smart, well-informed Palestinian political analyst Mouin Rabbani. I told him I thought the observation he made to me back in April that the west then looked set to make Fateh into the Palestinians’ Contras looked more prescient now than ever… I suggested to him that the role was either of Nicaraguan-style Contras or South African-style Inkatha Freedom Party, and asked how he saw things now. This is how he replied (posted here by permission):
I think comparisons can only be taken so far, but if an early Palestinian election materialises – which I tend to doubt – it will indeed have something in common with that in Nicaragua in 1988 (or was it 1990?) when the people were basically told by Washington, “vote for our Chamorro o or else”. This time the message will be “Do you want to eat”? Before [western government] people start celebrating the result they think will be obtained, they would do well to consider why the government hasn’t collapsed despite the sanctions that were imposed in March.
My own view is that no major decisions can be taken without a consensus including at least Fatah and Hamas. Early elections are a clear-cut case. Abbas doesn’t have a constitutional leg to stand on, and Hamas can respond to accusations that it is refusing to allow the will of the people to be expressed by pointing out this was done less than a year ago, pointing out that no one would accept if Hamas were to challenge a Fatah mandate 11 months after an election, and so on.
Judging by Abbas’s speech today he seems to genuinely believe the Palestinian people can be mobilised around the demand that Hamas capitulate to the Quartet conditions. Unlikely, even without taking into account that Fatah is in even worse shape today than it was in January.
My impression is that Hamas is determined to foil any attempt to conduct elections. This means things could get significantly worse unless serious negotiations for a new government are resumed.
—
HC again… AP reports on Abu Mazen calling for early elections, and the implications of this. Meanwhile, let’s hope and pray both sides there step back from the brink of confrontation on which they are now perched.
let’s hope and pray both sides there step back from the brink of confrontation on which they are now perched.
Unless Iranian fingers are cut off from playing there then our hope will be in place…
The US government is doing everything it can to foment a civil war in the Occupied Territories. The Bush administration is demonstrating once again its expertise in divide and conquer tactics. But most of the US media will continue to present the US as some sort of objective broker that is only supporting the “moderates” Abbas and Dahlan. Here are some links on the US role in all of this. (Helena, please forgive me is this is too much linking, but I am really alarmed about what the US is doing).
1–Diplomats fear US wants to arm Fatah for ‘war on Hamas’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2459426,00.html
“One Western official said that non-American quartet members emerged from one meeting convinced that the US wanted President Abbas to dismiss the Hamas Government, and to use his security forces to “confront Hamas politically and militarily, having confronted it economically”. “There was effectively a stand-off. As far as we are concerned, what the Americans are proposing to do is back one side in an emerging civil war,” said a western official familiar with the discussions.”
2–U.S. training Fatah in anti-terror tactics : Underlying motive is to counter strength of Hamas, analysts say
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/14/MNGIPMV3N61.DTL
“The Chronicle has obtained a training manual distributed to officers of the Al-Haras Al-Rayassi, Abbas’ Presidential Guard, during a two-week course held in Jericho earlier this year at which the chief instructor introduced himself as a U.S. Secret Service officer who served during the Reagan administration. The manual, titled “Advanced Protective Operations Seminar,” is emblazoned with the logo of the Counterterrorism Training Group, which includes the U.S. government seal.”
3—Abbas prepares for battle – one of these days
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801749.html
“Money must be obtained for the payment of salaries – at least those of the security personnel under Abbas. Saudi Arabia has promised the funds. …The Palestinian media has recently reported that the Egyptian army intends to transfer arms to Mahmoud Dahlan’s units in Gaza.”
Looking at the three most unstable countries in the ME, I wonder whether the actual US/Israel politic isn’t that of “the government we want, who makes the policy we want, or we prefer chaos”. This seems true for all countries, Lebanon (where I think that Seniora would have resigned if the West wasn’t telling him to clinge to power), Palestine (where they prefer to have two factions fighting each other, which suits Israel goals perfectly) and last but not least Iraq, where they did everything (disbanding the regular army, dissolving the state aparatus, debaathification and pitting the diverse factions against one another).
methinks you give Bush more credit than he deserves.
Nicaragua in 1988 (or was it 1990?)
It was the the latter.
Nicaragua in 1988 (or was it 1990?)
It was the the latter.
It is indeed so sad to see that people who I think deeply care for the Palestinian cause are falling into the Shia-Sunni trap that the British Empire so adeptly used, and has now been effectively taken up by their US/Israeli heirs. As you can see in the Haaretz post above by Lisette, and here:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801670.html
the US and its Saudi/Egyptian/Jordanian puppets in the region are actively fomenting bloodshed among Palestinian brothers. Corrupt known embezzlers and thugs like Dahlan, Erekat, and Abbas are now openly acting like they are on the Israeli payroll. “…In Khan Yunis, Fatah loyalists touching off the melee by chanting, “Shia, Shia” – a reference to the Shiite Muslims who control Iran …” The old man (Arafat) was terrible, but he would never stoop so low. And to put this into a Shia-Sunni paradigm, or frame it as Iran vs. Arabs is so naive that it is indeed heartbreaking. When will we wake up?
I meant to post this on this string, but did it on another erroneously.
http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley12152006.html
US “roadmap” in fact resembles Israeli efforts to incite civil war within the Palestinian community. Both countries have urged Abu Hazen to take the hard line with Hamas, regardless of the wishes of the Palestinian people. The boycotts since the elections, Israeli attacks in Gaza, and – of course – this item from Ha’aretz leaves no one wondering about US wishes for “peace”:
U.S. preparing Abbas guard to take on Hamas
By Aluf Benn and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent
The Bush administration has undertaken efforts to arm and train the Presidential Guard of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in order to prepare it for a potential violent confrontation with Hamas forces in the Gaza Strip.
According to information received in Jerusalem, the American security coordinator in the territories, General Keith Dayton, appeared before representatives of the Quartet in London last week and presented them with a program for bolstering the Palestinian presidential guard. The program calls for Egyptian, British and perhaps even Jordanian instructors to train the force loyal to Abbas.
However, Palestinian sources say that the training of a “Special Presidential Guard” started already a month ago, under the guidance of an American military instructor.
…
Israeli sources say that the United States is interested in the fall of the Hamas government currently in power in the Palestinian Authority.
During the Quartet meeting in London, the Americans expressed their satisfaction with the results of the boycott of Hamas’ government, which has undermined its standing among the Palestinians.
However, the U.S. administration is also certain that the sanctions against Hamas will inevitably result in a violent confrontation between Hamas and Fatah, and in such a scenario, they would prefer to strengthen the “good guys” headed by Abbas.
…
Senior administration officials David Welch and Elliott Abrams, who participated in the Quartet meeting, will arrive here Monday as part of preparations for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s visit to Washington in two weeks.
…
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/781482.html
Yes, THAT Eliott Abrams, notorious Central American death squad promoter and pardoned felon.
More Kissingerian realpolitik, at the expense of the Palestinians.
David,
Perhaps it will make you feel better to learn that, for their part, the Hamas leadership has been publicly calling the Fatah leadership “kufr” and accusing them of not being real Muslims.
You might also want to consider that the sides themselves share some responsibility in the in-fighting, without the assistance of the “puppets”, as you call them (or of Syria and Iran).
As for the “Old Man” (Arafat), as you call him, you should look back to the mid-90s when he was quite happy to imprison and torture Hamas activists – when it was in his political interest to do so, of course. In fact, it seems that this was at least part of the reason for the brutal murder, last week, of the three children of one of the Fatah “aparachiks” that Arafat tasked with that crackdown.
Jes,
I am not sure how two groups of Palestinians or Jews or any other tribe or people killing one another using religious or other excuses would make me feel better. Projection perhaps?
To attribute responsibility to factions and groups for their stupidity and tribalism is not mutually exclusive with acknowledging the hands of outsiders, puppets and occupiers included. Throughout history, all of those who have ruled by the divide-and-conquer dictum, causing massacres and bloodshed through infighting, have counted on the stupidity and ego of local leaders to take the cue, knowingly (like Dahlan) or not (like Haniyah) and resort to violence among themselves. To pay attention to the outside hands does not absolve the responsibility of the ones actually taking up arms and shooting their own brothers.
And about Arafat, I am well aware of what he did with Hamas. Oslo was essentially the creation of a Palestinian inner police apparatus to do Israel’s dirty work for it in the occupied territories. Nothing of substance was given to the Palestinians, nor was there ever such an intention from day one. It was clear from the get-go that “final status talks” were a carrot that the Palestinians would never taste. All the Palestinians cared about based on 242 and their charter (statehood, right of return, evacuation of settlements, East Jerusalem, control of borders and coastline, … ) were always treated with “oh, we’ll talk about that later”. So yes, Arafat did a lot of despicable things, one of them being encouraging infighting. What I do not recall him stooping down to was calling his enemies “Shia” to find a better reason to shoot at them.
David,
You make a lot of assumptions about Oslo and about the intent of the sides. I’m not certain that most of them hold water when examined critically. I think that those actually involved, on both sides, have openly agreed that four out of five of the conditions that you cited were actually pretty much agreed upon both before and after Arafat launched the second intifada. Further, if you recall, Barak’s stated goal was to move directly to the “final status” talks.
I am talking neither about “stupidity” nor “tribalism”. I am talking about internal political struggles based on the political objectives and aspirations of the leadership. If the actions of this leadership, and their followers, are “stupid” or based on “tribalism”, then that is a separate issue. Generally, “divide and rule” only works when those being divided succumb to these machinations.
I don’t think that one can take calls of “shia” seriously in isloation from parallel rants about the lack of religiousity by the other side. (BTW, I think that all parties concerned are smart enough to realize that Hamas is not a shia organization, but rather an offshoot of the sunni Muslim Brotherhood.)
Jes,
I agree with you that divide-and-conquer only works if the dividees [I know that’s not a proper word] succumb; it just so happens that they often do. I do believe that it all goes back to stupid tribalism at the end, which happens to be the fundamental factor. Again, it just so happens that people adhere to the beliefs and allegiances of their family/parents/relatives etc. So whatever struggles the leaders may have at the top, the man on the street who ends up pulling the trigger or throwing the stone or Molotov, be it Hamas or Fatah or Kahani is affiliated with that group based on stupid tribal instincts. Unfortunately, very few people rethink all the allegiances of their clan and tribe (Arab vs. Jew, Shia vs. Sunni, Catholic vs. Ulster, …).
You are right, anyone’s assumptions about “intent” are just speculations, including mine. But regarding Oslo, I strongly believed it to be a farce from Madrid onwards, and every step I have perceived treachery and dishonest claims. And I do not believe the standard story about Barak’s generosity, and his willingness to close the deal, etc. I also don’t believe that Arafat or anyone “launched” the Intifada. Yes these are my perceptions/ speculations regarding intent and cause-effect issues. And I don’t think either one of us is going to change the others mind on any of these historic points.
And yes, I didn’t think anyone actually thought Hamas is a Shia organization. I just found the fake promotion of religious sectarian tension, even where none exists, particularly revolting.
…have openly agreed that four out of five of the conditions that you cited were actually pretty much agreed upon both before and after Arafat launched the second intifada.
My understanding is that Arafat did not torpedo the talks by allegedly “launching” the intifada. There was a lull following the collapse of Camp David on July 25, 2000. The intifada didn’t start until September 29th (two months later). Furthermore, according to the US State Department, the spark which set off the intifada was a clash between armed Israeli troops and Palestinians armed only with rocks at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, regardless of the origins of the intifada, Arafat and Barak resumed talks in January of 2001; this time in Egypt (the famous Taba talks which are not often mentioned). It was there that the Palestinian side actually DID made specific counteroffers detailing the changes to the 1967 borders they were willing to accept.
That this was rejected by the Israelis does not preclude the fact that the Palestinian side did make specific counteroffers which would have allowed for a fully contiguous West Bank (this despite the commencement of the intifada) and that both sides had come so painstakingly close to an agreement. Perhaps if Israel had been willing to go the extra mile, there might have been an agreement. An historic missed opportunity (especially given what came afterwards).
That this was rejected by the Israelis does not preclude the fact that the Palestinian side did make specific counteroffers which would have allowed for a fully contiguous West Bank
The “counter offer” was not rejected by Israel. The intifada had the (I believe intended) effect of bringing down the Barak government. Both sides to the negotiations were willing to “go the extra mile” – this has been attested to by all parties to the negotiations at Taba and afterwards. Unfortunately, the Israeli electorate was not willing to accept the compromise while under fire and in the absence of a formal end to the conflict on the part of the Palestinian side (viz. Arafat).
JES,
You assert that the Barak gov’t was willing to go the extra mile, while blaming the intifada for bringing down the whole house of cards vis-a-viz the Israeli electorate. However, I understand that during the lull which took place between the collapse of Camp David and the beginning of the intifada two months later, Barak was already backtracking on some of what was agreed to under Oslo 2 – ie. nixing plans for withdrawal from the town of Abu Dis. Furthermore, new settlements were announced in August and the early part of September; specifically at Efrat and Har Adar.
Backtracking? New settlements at Efrat and Har Adar?
Efrat was one of the early Gush Emunim settlements, from the early 1980s. Har Adar is in the Jerusalem Corridor, and was around, I believe, for about 15 years already at the time of Camp David.
The issue is not, and has never really been, about isolated portions of territory. If it were, it the conflict would have been settled years ago.
So what exactly is the “extra mile” that you would have had Barak go?
Without getting into specifics, it just seems to me that both sides were so close to an agreement at Taba that it would have been worth the effort (on both sides) to invest whatever was necessary to obtain an agreement. It shouldn’t be too hard to see that in retrospect given all the blood that has been shed since. Of course, each side blames the other. As Ha-aretz reported, however:
Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks, … , will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement. This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts further doubts on the prevailing assumption that former prime minister Ehud Barak “exposed Yasser Arafat’s true face.”
I agree with you on this. I do think that it is a shame. I do not think that it had anything to do with either side “going the extra mile”, however. I think that there was an inherent problem with neither side understanding the other.
Barak was probably convinced that the issue was territory. But there was territorial agreement by both sides, as all the participants stated afterwards.
Arafat was probably convinced that Israel would agree to an ambiguous final status (that presumably he could continue to tweak and manipulate later). That was not in the cards either.
Both sides have paid a heavy price for the actions of their leaders in this case.
While the talk going for the blaming going on, it is all Palestinian fault they should take the “responsibility of their actions” all these sort of words which will never feed the a hunger for peace.
I think what was gone it’s gone in regards of peace talk in the past, there is no time staying discussing who is fault?
If there is a real will by Israeli and their citizens, they should show this as soon as possible, with all recent offers made or start to be offered Israeli should come down and negotiate peace with Palestinians.
Theses are some recent offers:
1- Saudi King Abdullah Peace Offer 2002 agreed and supported by most Arab states.
2- Franc-Spain talks of ME Summits for peace and negotiations NOV 2004
3- EU offer to international summits to negotiate the peace talk in ME, Nov 2006.
Tell us what wrong with above offers? Why Israeli rejecting all of the above? Why they rejected even Israelis did not knew all have the full details “at lest two of the above offers”.
This is will tell us whose fault to run for peace, don’t staying arguing, blaming other side to “take responsibility of their actions”, did you take the responsibility of your actions, when you believe and agree in wise action to stops the blood shad?
“the Israeli electorate was not willing to accept the compromise while under fire and in the absence of a formal end to the conflict on the part of the Palestinian side (viz. Arafat).”
Jes,
Would it be unfair to substitute ‘Israel’ for ‘Israeli electorate’ in the line above? And does it make sense to you that the Israeli side was okay with the deal, and the only problem they had with it was accepting it “under fire”? Do you really think that the Israeli body politic was then, or is now, ready to accept a truly sovereign and strong Palestinian state “sticking into its guts” [as someone said with reference to the geographic shape of the map]? And I mean a real state, with control of its borders, military, etc. not a little protégé statelet. All of these questions are honestly posed to hear your perspective, and not for rhetorical reasons.
David,
I said “Israeli electorate” because I was trying to stick to facts, rather than simply making assertions. The Israeli electorate chose Barak largely based on the Labour platform of bringing Oslo to final status (a process that had been sidetracked by Netanyahu). Public opinion polls also indicated a readiness to come to an agreement. Further, the “Israeli side”, as you call in, was certainly ready to deal during the negotiations, and there was essentially territorial agreement between the sides. There would not have been early elections had something not happened, and that “something” was the intifada, or return to the “armed struggle”. But again, I think you should go back and read what I wrote concerning the need for a non-ambiguous conclusion to the state of conflict.
Is Israel now ready to accept a Palestinian state? I think that the answer is “yes”, and I would cite the fact that this was essentially the platform on which both Kadima and Labour were elected in the past elections.
Concerning the nature of a Palestinian state, I don’t think that the average Israeli wants this to be a “protege”, or to have control over that state’s borders. However, given the events of the past six years, I do believe that the “Israeli side” wants some form of guarantee that that state will not be militarily hostile.
It would also be interesting to know exactly what you mean by “strong” in reference to a Palestinian state. If you mean economically strong, I think that this is in Israel’s interest. If you mean militarily strong, I would ask precisely against whom and why such a state would need a strong military.
JES,
You ignoring the questions put to you.
Come forward and answer WHY ISRAILE REJECTEING above peace offers?
Come on let enrich our discussion here with your thoughts don’t keep urging of things in the past that not can solve our problem today.
Uncle Hamas Cares for Palestinians
By Ulrike Putz in Gaza City