Showing posts with label Palestinian statehood bid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestinian statehood bid. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

A Shortlived Gain for Hamas

 JPost:

... But observers of the Palestinian scene say Hamas’s victory will likely prove ephemeral as the Palestinian public quickly forgets the achievement and the age-old debate remains unresolved among Palestinians – whether to achieve their state through negotiations, as Abbas advocates, or through armed struggle, as Hamas wants.

“Twenty days ago, Abbas gave a speech at the UN General Assembly and he was very popular. Nowadays, now one talks about that speech. No one talks about Palestine at the UN,” Mkhaimar Abusada, professor of politics at Gaza’s Al-Azhar University, told The Media Line. “The same thing will happen to Hamas.

The Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority ruling in the West Bank has been leading a drive to have the United Nations recognize a Palestinian state, a move its leaders say will enhance their standing and pressure Israel into peace talks. Hamas, which seized control of the Gaza Strip four years ago, rejects Israel’s existence and insists Palestinians can defeat it militarily.

While the prisoner swap doesn’t quite fit the description of armed struggle – Hamas negotiated the terms through Egyptian and German intermediaries – analysts and PA officials say that it does demonstrate the value of persistence and the refusal to compromise. They say it undermines in eyes of the Palestinian public the advantages of a negotiated solution.

Abusada said Hamas may enjoy a second wave of public adulation when a second group of 550 prisoners is released in two months, but the impact of that will also fade away, short of a more comprehensive answer to solving the Palestinians’ problems.

Although Hamas leaders have said the prisoner swap includes promises by Israel to ease the blockade it imposed on Gaza when Hamas took over in 2007, the movement can only suggest to Palestinians patience as a timetable to military victory. Hamas has stockpiled missiles and other weaponry in anticipation of another conflict with Israel, but its last fight with the Jewish state in the 2008-2009 Cast Lead Operation ended badly for it.

More recently, Hamas has seen its popularity slip amid a failure negotiate a national unity government with Fatah this year or to improve living conditions in Gaza. Its early hopes that the Arab Spring would improve its standing have been dashed. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who was cool to the Islamic movement, was ousted from power, but Bashar Assad, a key ally, is beset by popular rebellion at home.

...
What Hamas may not be able to do, however, is rebuild its organization with the released prisoners heading back to the Fatah-ruled West Bank, where Israeli and PA security forces have decimated the movement, analysts said. Their identities are already known and their movements are likely to be restricted.

Yoram Cohen, the head of Israel’s Shin Bet security agency and a supporter of the swap, said the number of prisoners being released was too small to change the balance of power between Israel and Hamas or between Hamas and the Fatah.

“The risk we are taking is on a level and a security challenge we will be able to deal with. There are 20,000 Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam fighters in Gaza, and another 200 terrorists won't make the world crash down upon us," Cohen told reporters last week, referring to the military wing of Hamas.

Hamas has also diminished the PR impact of the swap by failing to free some of the most high-profile Palestinians held by Israel and focusing on its own members at the expense of Palestinians affiliated with Fatah and other movements.

"This is not a deal," Fatah's Kadura Fares, who heads a Palestinian prisoner activist group and is a close associate of jailed Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti. Fares told the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, "This agreement does not come close to respecting the principles and criteria which Hamas itself promised."

Among the celebrity prisoners still behind bars in Israel are Ahmad Sa'adat of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, jailed for his role in assassinating Minister of Tourism Rehavam Ze’evi in 2001; and Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, who is serving multiple life sentences and is regarded as many as a possible successor to Abbas as Fatah chief.

Islamists also have their complaints about the prisoner list, said Zelkovitz. Abbas Al-Sayed, who helped plan to 2002 bombing of the Park Hotel in Netanya, was not released; nor were Abdullah Barghouti, a Hamas official in Gaza responsible for dozens of murders; or Ibrahim Hamed, the head of the movement’s military wing in the West Bank.
You hear that? It's not a good deal because only 1027 terrorists and murderers are being released... Pathetic...

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Quite simply, they want it all

Barry Rubin, JPost:
No matter what the Palestinian Authority is offered – money, concessions and even steps toward statehood– the response is always “no.” Media, academic “experts” and governments seem to find this amazing phenomenon very hard to understand.The answer is simple, but a lot of the people paid to deal with this stuff don’t get it. So let me elucidate: The Palestinian Authority (PA) wants everything.

The PA wants an independent state on all the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem with no restrictions, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, no serious security guarantees, no limits on militarization, no agreement that this means an end to the conflict, no insistence that Palestinian refugees be resettled in the state of Palestine, and nothing to prevent them from pursuing a second stage of wiping Israel off the map entirely.
Now, one could say it’s common for people to want everything and to give nothing in exchange but that certain factors – missing in this case – push them toward compromise.

These factors include:

• Knowing they can’t get a better deal. The Palestinians know the West will always offer more if they are intransigent.

• The impasse favors your adversary because your intransigence will gain it international support. In this case, the more stubborn the Palestinians are, the more Israel is blamed.

• Economic pressure. Since the PA is almost completely supported by foreign aid that is not threatened by its hard line, this pressure does not exist.

• Public opinion pressure to change the situation. In this case, Palestinian public opinion is relatively radicalized and ideological and does not demand a compromise settlement.

• Concern that your political rivals will “outmoderate” you and win by offering to make a deal. In this case, the opposite is true: rivals “out-radicalize” one another and threaten to destroy you politically (and perhaps even physically) if you make a deal.

• Belief that time is not on your side. Due to religious and nationalist ideology, along with misperception of Israel, the PA (and even more so Hamas) believes that time is on its side.

That’s not a complete list. But the point is that the world in general – the United States and Europe, the UN, Arabic-speaking countries and Muslim-majority states – have created a “perfect” system.

Here’s a brief description:

The PA has no incentive to make compromises for peace, so it won’t.
• The world insists that “peace” is an urgent top priority.

The only variable is Israel, which must be made to give way. But Israel won’t because of past experience and the fact that the risks are now too high.

Deadlock.

So nothing will change. There will be no peace process, no Palestinian state. No “progress” will be made.
...
This is not left-wing or right-wing but merely an explanation as to why all the schemes and theories of those who do not see these facts never actually take wing. It may not be politically correct, but it is most definitely factually correct.

Now, you might ask, do I just criticize or do I have constructive policy advice?

I do. Here it is: When the Palestinian Authority rejects the Quartet proposal for negotiations, the United States, European Union and anyone else who wants to go along tells them, “We’ve tried to help you and you don’t want to listen, so since we have lots of other things to do, we’ll go do them. Good luck, and if you ever change your mind and get serious about making peace you have our phone number.”

The previous paragraph would send shock waves throughout policy circles, right? But why? If you can’t solve a problem and – let’s be clear here – the problem doesn’t need to be solved immediately, then you work on other problems. There are no shortage of those! I hope you have enjoyed this article and found it useful. We are left, however, with the following problem: Those in positions of political, media and intellectual power don’t get it.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center. He is a featured columnist at Pajamas Media and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) journal.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Legal arguments against PA statehood bid - Israel Foreign Ministry

Up until now, legal experts and bloggers have taken the stand of arguing why the Palestinians don't fit the criteria for statehood.



It's pretty much repeated in the Foreign Ministry's report.  It was circulated to members of the foreign ministry to serve as a guidelines for arguing against a Palestinian statehood bid and when meeting with foreign countries.

JPost has the story:


With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas circling the globe drumming up support from UN Security Council countries for his statehood bid, the Foreign Ministry circulated a document to its representatives abroad this week, spelling out legal arguments against the move.

The document, written by the Foreign Ministry’s legal department at the behest of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, is to serve as a basis for Israel’s envoys in their continued efforts to poke holes into the Palestinians’ argument that they are ready for statehood.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
“The Palestinian request for membership in the United Nations, which was submitted to the Secretary-General on September 23, 2011, implies that a Palestinian state already, somehow, exists,” read the document, obtained by The Jerusalem Post.

“The request asked to build upon this supposedly existing status to request membership in the United Nations. However, based on both traditional and contemporary legal and tangible tests, it is clear that while one day the Palestinian state could come into existence, today the Palestinian entity has not achieved the status of statehood.”

The five-page paper states that under the accepted principles of international law going back to the Montevideo Convention of 1933, there are four prerequisites for statehood: a permanent population; defined territory; effective government; and a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Regarding its permanent population, the paper stated that the Palestinians have “been ambiguous about which group of people would constitute the permanent population of their state.”

“The Palestinians seem to be seeking to establish a new state, and at the same time preserve the status of Palestinians living in the diaspora as so-called ‘refugees,’” the document continued.

“As part of this effort, they have presented contradictory positions, wanting to continue to represent all Palestinians on refugee-related claims, but, at the same time, stating that they do not intend to grant citizenship to members of the Palestinian diaspora.”

According to the document, this is an “internal contradiction” that necessarily leads to ambiguity on the population issue since a state can only represent the claims of its own citizens.

The document cited a report in Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper in which Abdullah Abdullah, the Palestinian ambassador to Lebanon, said the future Palestinian state would not be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees – even refugees living in the West Bank and Gaza.

As to the prerequisite of effective government, the document said it would be difficult to argue that the Palestinians presently meet the most basic test of effective governmental control of the territories they are claiming within their state.

“Hamas continues to exercise full control of the Gaza Strip,” the document read. “Despite the signing by Fatah and Hamas of a so-called ‘Reconciliation Agreement’ in May 2011, nothing has changed in practice.

Palestinian Authority leadership, which submitted the UN request for membership, is completely excluded from responsibility in Gaza and retains no control in Gaza.”

One glaring example of this lack of effective control is that Abbas himself has been unable to visit Gaza since Hamas seized control there in 2007.

In addition to a lack of control over Gaza, the Palestinians also do not have control over the West Bank, with some 60 percent effectively under full- Israeli control, as part of Area C.

The paper also argues that “recent trends” suggest other criteria as well when considering whether an entity is a state: that it be based on a “lawful claim of statehood;” that it commit itself to international law, human rights and global peace; and that it constitute a viable entity. On each of these counts, the paper argued, the Palestinians fell short.

Additional details of Israel’s legal arguments against the Palestinian statehood bid will appear in Friday’s Jerusalem Post.