Over the years, Israel has succeeded in selling its security concerns to the Western world. This was a pretext to continue the occupation of Palestinian territories and justify its apartheid treatment of the Palestinian people. Israel’s security was and still is a formidable excuse. The argument that the Palestinians have the natural right like any other people under occupation to resist their occupiers and defend their land seems to be unacceptable to the Western world.
Two things allow Israel to succeed in maintaining Western support. One is the professional Jewish media apparatus existing in Israel, the United States and Western Europe, coupled with a sensitive Jewish Western audience willing to accept Israel’s argument despite the immorality of the occupation and Israel’s noncompliance with UN resolutions. Two: The weakness of Palestinian media and information, coupled with novice Palestinian politicians’ statements, and ignorant masked youngsters frequently appearing on world TV screens brandishing rifles.
These are being used by Israeli/Jewish and Western journalists in support of an argument testifying to Palestinian “rejection of peace”, and being associated with terrorism.
The Western media is not interested in the fact that the majority of the Palestinian people are eagerly waiting to achieve peace and be able to live a normal life in a state of their own. They are not interested in the fact that the PLO, the sole representative of the Palestinian people, signed the Oslo peace accords with Israel. That the elected president of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas has been working for decades for the sole purpose of achieving a just and durable peace in our region, whereby an independent viable Palestinian state is established capable of living side by side in peace with a secure and recognized Israel.
The Quartet’s statement issued in Berlin last Wednesday, as all previous statements, was very clear on what it demands from the Palestinian side, but always vague and general in what it asks from Israel. Should the Quartet’s statement be specific on what is demanded from Israel, and not to put the onus on Hamas’ shoulders only, Hamas, under Palestinian public pressure, would find it very difficult not to unequivocally accept the Quartet’s conditions — recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and accepting all previous agreements the PLO signed with Israel.
Israel and the United States are not satisfied with the Saudi-sponsored Makkah agreement between Fatah and Hamas, which led to an end in internal fighting in Palestine, and brought about a united Palestinian agreement with minimum denominator on how to move forward.
President Mahmoud Abbas indicated to the press in Jordan last Tuesday that his meeting last Monday with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in the presence of US secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was difficult. Citing the newly signed Makkah agreement, Olmert was reported to have accused Abbas of cheating him. The point Olmert was making here was his refusal of a Palestinian national unity government in which all Palestinian political factions, including Fatah and Hamas, would participate. The fact that Palestinian national interest, and the overall prospects for peace are better served by such a government, did not make any difference in Israel’s mind and that of its supporters.
It took the PLO and Israel tens of years before they acknowledged each other’s existence and exchanged letters of recognition. By any standard, Hamas, an important Palestinian faction, made a quantum leap in less than a year, and joined Fatah in a political program that commits to Arab and international legitimacy resolutions, and honors all previously signed agreements between the PLO and Israel. Furthermore, Hamas submitted to the fact that the PLO and its Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is the only party with the full authority to negotiate peace with Israel. Hamas’ most senior leaders, including Khalid Meshal, accepted the fact of Israel’s existence, and called for the establishment of a Palestinian state on Palestinian land occupied by Israel since June 1967. This is also, not regarded by many, as the end of the story.
President Mahmoud Abbas said, on behalf of all the Palestinian people, last Wednesday in London: “We are committed to the vision of a two-state solution, we are committed to reject violence, and we are committed to international law and all agreements that have been reached between us and Israel and the world community, in addition to the Arab peace initiative which has been agreed by the Arab and Muslim world. With this, we will go ahead and hope that the government of national unity will be formed soon and that we will move in this direction hoping the international community will stand by us and continue supporting us in order to rebuild our institutions and to achieve a Palestinian state.” The internal situation in Palestine is now in its worst conditions ever. International sanctions, coupled with Israel’s siege have caused the breakdown of the Palestinian economy, and this has filtered down to the health and education sectors. Employment is at its lowest point ever. Incidents of theft, burglary and robbery have increased. The social fabric of Palestinian society is experiencing heavy loads never seen before.
This in turn has made a significant portion of the Palestinian people lose hope. Under these circumstances, one would be extremely lucky to find one Palestinian who believes Israel is serious in making peace with the Palestinian people, and the sanctions imposed by the West on the Palestinian people have strengthened this belief.
A collective Palestinian thought says that Israel cannot impose “peace” on the Palestinian people while Israel is still occupying the Palestinian territory. The fact that the West is aiding Israel in its plans to perpetuate the occupation and to destroy Palestinian society caused a devastating shock to the collective thinking of the Palestinian people.
Repairing the damage requires some rethinking on all sides.
In an interview with Israel’s TV Channel 2 last Saturday, King Abdallah of Jordan emphatically stated: “If a Palestinian state is not established this year, the conflict will go on for another 50 years.”
The Economist (Feb. 17-23 issue) said the following:
“Make it look real (a Palestinian state), and maybe they will buy it:
In the 1980s Israelis did not let their divisions over the occupied (Palestinian) lands tear their nation apart. (After 1967 Israel’s main parties adopted incompatible positions on the greatest dilemma: What to do with the lands captured in the six-day war. Labor said the West Bank could be traded for peace; Likud that it was Jews’ biblical homeland, and never to be surrendered. That did not stop the two parties from sometimes sharing power. A disgruntled member of one national unity government in 1984 called it “a two-headed monster.”) Why should they, so long as the Palestinians gave no hint of ever accepting Israel? It all began to change when by accepting the Jewish state’s permanence Arafat made the dream of peace look real to Israelis.
The trick now is to make statehood look real enough to Palestinians for the majority to abandon Hamas’ bleak vision of war to the end... When Palestinians come to believe that a generous two-state deal is really available, many may reconsider their support of Hamas. It is time to soften the economic pressure and negotiate a detailed promise of statehood that Mr. Abbas can take to his people. This is a better way to win the argument against Hamas than the past year’s vain efforts to make the Palestinians jump through verbal hopes they have come to consider humiliating.”
One hopes that Israel and the Quartet will take a good look at what the Economist magazine has said.
