Sorry I’ve been very busy and haven’t had a moment to catch you all up with the fascinating saga of the Fateh-Hamas negotiations in Sana’a, Yemen…
Al-Jazeera English tells us that negotiators Azzam al-Ahmed (F) and Mousa Abu Marzouk (H) concluded a seven-point deal on Saturday (March 22), though the signing ceremony was on Sunday.
The AJE report tells us it was a seven-point agreement, and presents it to us as such, though sadly it lists only these SIX points:
- • Gaza must be returned to how it was prior to the Hamas takeover last June
• Agreement to hold early elections
• Resumption of dialogue on the basis of the 2005 Cairo agreement and the Mecca agreement of 2007
• Respecting the Palestinian Law and Basic Law and adherence to it by all parties
• Reconstruction of the Palestinian security institutions
• All Palestinian institutions to be free of any factional discrimination, subject to the law and the executive authorities.
Well, seven points or six points– almost immediately after agreement was announced, some people in Abu Mazen’s office denounced and repudiated it. This, though Azzam Ahmed is a serious political figure within Fateh. Monsters & Critics tells us that Abu Mazen aide Nimr Hammad huffed that Ahmed “had not been authorized” to sign the Sana’a Agreement. Israel’s Y-net News had a quote from Abu Mazen aide Yasser Abed Rabboo criticizing Ahmed, too.
That latter report, which I think was an AP report, quoted Abu Ala’ (Ahmed Qurei’) as saying that Azzam Ahmed had been trying to get through to Abu Mazen by phone to discuss some fine points in the agreement but couldn’t because Abu Mazen was busy meeting with– you guessed it, Dick Cheney, at the time.
So this is where the picture becomes a little clearer for me. Cheney and Condi Rice have, after all, been modeling for their eager students and proteges in Fateh just how to ‘run’ a diplomatic effort through legerdemain and completely chaotic messaging.
Remember how, earlier this month, the secretary of State was in Brussels telling a press conference that she supported Egypt’s efforts to mediate a ceasefire-plus agreement between Israel and Hamas?
Well, now, apparently Cheney’s gone to the Middle East to say the administration doesn’t support any effort to engage with Hamas, after all.
If the Israeli government wants a deal with Hamas, I am sure it will just go ahead and nail one down, Dick Cheney or no Dick Cheney. In Tuesday’s Ha’aretz, Amos Harel and Yuval Azoulay tell us that an Egypt-mediated “calm for calm” situation has been generally holding for some days now across the Gaza-Israel border. Or rather, that Hamas and Israel are abiding by it, “even though Islamic Jihad occasionally launches rockets into Israel.”
Other portions of that report indicate that some people in the Israeli Defense Ministry are pursuing an intense campaign to “lower expectations” about any kind of more solid ceasefire emerging with Gaza. But if Hamas does succeed in keeping the Gaza-Israel border calm (i.e. no rockets), what would be the justification for Israel’s continued maintenance of the siege?
Israel’s siege is called “occupation”. It is a 60 year of brutal war crimes and collective punishment.
As Nasrullah said in his last speeech, israelis could not bear the brunt of bunkers during 33 days of war, while their neighbors and the people they occupy have suffered for 60 years.
Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians are justified in resisting to end this occupation under international law, while occupiers are responsible to provide and protect all its citizen, therefore the occupier is accountable.
In short the occupied are justified to resist, while the occupier has no justification to begin.