WHILE many would have thought that Hamas and other Palestinian liberation groups had stopped firing rockets into Israel ever since the Israeli barbarity on Gaza almost a year ago, sporadic shelling has apparently been continuing. But the announcement of a cease-fire from Hamas and its satellite groups puts an official end to their attacks on Israel and it should bring greater stability to the lives of people in Gaza, enabling them to continue repairing the damage caused by the conflict.
The top men in Hamas are sensitive to the contrast of a better life in the West Bank where Hamas’ rivals, Fatah, are in power. Crime might have fallen in Gaza, but life is still hard. War and Israeli-imposed shortages have seen to that. And while Gazans blame Israel first for the shortages that have resulted from the blockade, the latest opinion polls suggest that were a Palestinian election to be held, Hamas would lose out to Fatah — even in Gaza.
In the West Bank, meanwhile, there have been some improvements in the economy and in security. The northern town of Nablus, for example, has experienced something of an upturn in recent months. Israeli forces have removed some of the checkpoints around the town. Shopkeepers say business is doing better. But like the rest of the West Bank, it is still under Israeli occupation. Despite the Palestinian Authority’s “collaboration” with Israel, the results are more settlements, more checkpoints, and the wall of separation is continuing. The situation is really not much better than in Gaza, although it is not officially under siege.
The Hamas cease-fire will ease general Palestinian concerns of a repeat of Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli military offensive in Gaza last December and January, which killed nearly 1,400 Palestinians in the three weeks of fighting. The truce might actually be one of the few things Hamas and Fatah agree upon; the Fayyad declaration of a Palestinian state is another. Both are distrustful of the proposal by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to declare a Palestinian state within two years, and taking the case to the UN Security Council for recognition. Fayyad’s proposal has been met by near comprehensive rejection by Palestinians who view it as a formula for continued occupation, charging that it is in compliance with Israeli goals.
A statehood declaration was made in Algiers more than 20 years ago and another declaration would not be taken seriously by the international community. Further, a state in the air or one on paper will not do the Palestinians and their cause any good. And anyway, liberation from the Israeli occupation has to precede statehood. Statehood is the result of ending the occupation.
It is true that a statehood declaration, backed by international support, especially from Western powers such as the US and EU, and coupled with the restoration of Palestinian national unity, would enable the Palestinians to make a significant leap toward freedom and independence from the Israeli occupation.
However, Fayyad’s proposal aims to rearrange priorities on the Palestinian national agenda, making the improvement of the living conditions of Palestinians more important than liberation that should not be the case.
Lessons for Cameron
EXCERPTS from an editorial in The Independent on Saturday:
British Europhobes have been as vociferous as some pro-European voices in their criticisms of the undemocratic way in which Europe’s new leadership team has been chosen. They should be careful what they wish for. For such a criticism can have only two implications. Either that such jobs should be chosen by some form of election; or that Britain should pull out of the EU. But to confer direct democratic legitimacy on any EU post would lend it vastly increased authority, and represent a genuine transfer of sovereignty to Brussels, as opposed to the phantoms against which the Europhobes have railed for so long. Greater democratic accountability at the European level is something that we support as a longer-term goal, but David Cameron, the Conservative leader, might be better advised to sound vaguely approving of the Rompuy-Ashton settlement.
Cameron ought to learn another lesson from the deal that was cut with surprisingly little fuss last Thursday evening. Which is that the big political groupings matter, and not just in the unreported proceedings of the European Parliament. The presidency was decided by the Christian Democratic bloc, in which Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are the principal power brokers.
Gordon Brown’s success — for which most of the British media perversely refuse to give him credit — in securing the second post for a Briton was achieved through the good offices of Labour’s membership of the second largest, social democratic bloc. Cameron, if he becomes prime minister next year, has deliberately disarmed himself and the country in advance by setting up his fringe grouping with the maverick Czech right.
There are lessons for pro-Europeans, too, both in the creation of these posts and the way that they were filled. We have long argued that there is a lack of democracy at the heart of the EU, which was not remedied by the Lisbon Treaty. As it happens, Van Rompuy and Cathy Ashton are good choices to lead the EU who should be given a chance to prove themselves. We have minor reservations about both of them.
