What is wrong in these lines, published in an article in the Jerusalem Post today: “Three of my sons serve in elite combat units. They risk their lives to protect this state. But when my daughter tries to exercise her right to settle the land of our forefathers, they treat her worse than an Arab.” From an article published in today’s Jerusalem Post here.
Kol Israel Radio reported this evening that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told European Union Ambassadors in a briefing today that if Fatah and Hamas agree to form another “National Unity” Government, then Israel will call off its negotiations with the Palestinians.
In an unusual action, the normally-oh-so-discreet International Committee of the Red Cross put out a booklet, with photos, saying that “Throughout the occupied Palestinian territories, in the Gaza Strip as well as in the West Bank, Palestinians continuously face hardship in simply going about their lives; they are prevented from doing what makes up the daily fabric of most people’s existence. The Palestinian territories face a deep human crisis, where millions of people are denied their human dignity. Not once in a while, but every day…”
“Nothing is predictable for Palestinians. Rules can change from one day to the next without notice or explanation. They live in an arbitrary environment, continuously adapting to circumstances they cannot influence and that increasingly reduce the range of their possibilities”.
…”Only prompt, innovative and courageous political action can change the harsh reality of this long-standing occupation, restore normal social and economic life to the Palestinian people, and allow them to live their lives in dignity”.
Dignity Denied, an informational booklet published today by the ICRC, can be seen here.
As Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams met today in preparation for the formal opening of new negotiations on 12 December, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said at a business conference in Tel Aviv today that “Annapolis does not constitute an historic breakthrough. It was not planned to be one either. However, it provided us backup and support for this process of firming up the foundations for serious negotiations, meaningful reconciliation and perhaps even peace accords“.
Olmert told the businessmen: “I do not intend to stop. Annapolis was not an event, nor was it a show for the sake of publicity. Over four years ago, in an interview with the ‘Yediot Ahronot’ newspaper, I said that I believed that the shortness of time obligated us to act quickly to reach a political agreement which would allow us to evacuate most of the territory in Judea and Samaria, create a clear barrier between ourselves and the majority of Palestinians and allow them to establish an independent, vibrant and democratic state of their own. The destruction of the two-state model and international backing for the idea of one state for all residents with equal rights to vote threatens the existence of the State of Israel. I never said that if there was not a political solution, the State of Israel was finished, despite the headline in the newspapers and the quote wrongfully attributed to me – that combination of words never left my mouth. If the solution of two nation-states for two people is removed from the international agenda – and we continue to be in all the territories, and the Palestinians demand total democratization of the country under whose patronage they live – this will create an existential threat to Israel, certainly as a Jewish state. Today there is a chance, there is an opportunity, there is the beginning of dialogue with a Palestinian leadership which declares its desire for peace. It is true that this leadership is not strong enough. They still do not have the firm infrastructure of a country, with all the accompanying institutions and law enforcement authorities needed for its establishment. However, there is a leadership which declares its desire to make peace with us. This is an opportunity with many uncertain components, many risks and many dangers. It is impossible not to recognize them, it is impossible to ignore them. Under no circumstances can we allow this uncertainty and the risks to decide. Because there is also an opportunity. I intend to take advantage of this opportunity to conduct serious, continuous, ongoing negotiations in order to reach a historic breakthrough towards a new political reality”.
Talking in terms designed to appeal to businesspersons, Olmert said that “One cannot prophesy economic growth while fighting against the reconciliation process and any negotiations with our Palestinian neighbors. One cannot be against Annapolis, endlessly frighten the public regarding national catastrophes, isolate Israel from the central stream of global politics and believe at the same time that markets can be increased, trade can be expanded, more foreign investors and investments can be brought here or that more and more countries can be encouraged to have improved economic relations with us”.
Paradoxically, however, Israel appears to be in better economic shape than ever — despite plenty of fighting against the reconciliation process and negotiations with Palestinians. Last year, Israel went to war against Lebanon — and everybody seemed to get rich.
Olmert told the business conference today that “This year, the growth of the economy will be no less than 5.5%, and perhaps even higher. The rate of unemployment decreased in the final quarter to a rate of 7.4% – the lowest in over a decade. Our balance of payments is positive for the third year in a row, and the surplus will this year stand at $8 billion. Inflation is close to zero, our national debt has decreased to a rate of 82% of the GNP. In 2007, product per capita will average close to $21,000 and in terms of consumer power in Israel, its value is even higher”.
Olmert’s remarks to business leaders can be found here.
So, Product per capita in Israel this year will average close to $21,000!!! In the occupied Palestinian territory, it is enormously less. If I recall correctly, it is $1,600 in the West Bank, and about half that in the Gaza Strip. The potential for exploitation in any peace deal is enormous…
Today’s Haaretz carried a commentary from Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman on the two hot issues this fall:
(1) racism and identity in Israel, and (2) recognition of Israel as a Jewish State.
Rabbi Hartman wrote: “While most Jews - but not all - clearly define Israel as a Jewish state, not every Israeli does. To ask a Muslim or Christian who is an Israeli citizen to regard himself as a citizen of a Jewish state is to expect him to declare himself a perennial outsider within his own country. It is perfectly legitimate, and even crucial, that Israeli Jews define Israel as a Jewish state. In the Jewish understanding of the rebirth of the State of Israel, we have returned to the Land of Israel to create a sovereign Jewish state; in our understanding, the Jewish national narrative is of necessity the majority narrative here. But to assume non-Jews - equal citizens of the State of Israel by virtue of the democratic principles at the basis of Israel’s self-understanding - feel the same way as Jews is not only unreasonable, it is nonsensical. To expect that a non-Jew will accept a Jewish national identity is to fail to recognize the complexity of the multicultural reality that is the modern State of Israel. We have made this mistake since 1948; while witnesses to the growth of the Palestinian minority in our midst, we have failed to come up with a category to accommodate their distinct Israeli identity. In relegating them to the status of perennial strangers in a Jewish state, we make it supremely difficult for this people to feel a duty of loyalty to Israel or any sense of equality living in it … There must be a Jewish narrative and a broader Israeli narrative that creates a collective space with bonds of loyalty toward citizens of the State of Israel who are either non-Jews or for whom the state’s Jewishness is not the central feature of their national self-understanding. The impoverished condition of the current political discussion on this issue assumes that anyone who relinquishes an exclusive claim to a Jewish narrative is a post or anti-Zionist. Many Jews fear that by surrendering the exclusivity of the Jewish claim to Israel they facilitate the destruction of the Jewish state. This, I believe, is a mistake. Multicultural states, of which Israel is but one example, require multiple national narratives to enable their different populations to participate. It does not require particular cultures to forfeit their own national self-understanding, but to give up the claim to define others’ collective identity … With respect to the peace negotiations now underway, it is both unnecessary and unreasonable to require the Palestinian people to accept Israel as a Jewish state. It is critical that they recognize Israel as an independent state against which they have no territorial demands or aspirations” …
This commentary was published in Haaretz today here.
UPDATE: ON SUNDAY, ISRAELI NEWSPAPERS ARE REPORTING THAT A NEW REPORT INDICATES A DRAMATIC RISE IN ANTI-ARAB RACISM — Haaretz reported that “Racism against Israel’s Arab citizens has dramatically increased in the past year, including a 26 percent rise in anti-Arab incidents, according to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel’s annual report. Author Sami Michael, the association’s president, said upon the release of the report that racism was so rife it was damaging civil liberty in Israel. “Israeli society is reaching new heights of racism that damages freedom of expression and privacy,” Michael said. The publication coincides with Human Rights Week, which begins Sunday”…
Haaretz adds that “According to the June 2007 Democracy Index of the Israel Democracy Institute, for example, only half the public believes that Jews and Arabs must have full equal rights. Among Jewish respondents, 55 percent support the idea that the state should encourage Arab emigration from Israel and 78 percent oppose the inclusion of Arab political parties in the government. According to a Haifa University study, 74 percent of Jewish youths in Israel think that Arabs are ‘unclean’. The ACRI says that bills introduced in the Knesset contribute to delegitimize the country’s Arab citizens, such as ones that would link the right to vote and receive state allowances to military or national service. They also include bills that require ministers and MKs to swear allegiance to a Jewish state and those that set aside 13 percent of all state lands owned by the Jewish National Fund for Jews only. ‘Arab citizens are frequently subject to ridicule at the airports’, the report states. It says that Arab citizens ‘are subject to ‘racial profiling’ that classifies them as a security threat. The government also threatens the freedom of expression of Arab journalists by brandishing the whip of economic boycott and ending the publication of government announcements in newspapers that criticize its policy’.” The Haaretz report can be read here.
Israel’s YNet news website carries a report saying that “The Association for Civil Rights in Israel’s (ACRI) report on civil rights in Israel paints a bleak picture: Increasing racism, restriction of personal freedoms and discrimination even within the Knesset walls – and that’s just scratching the surface. Published Saturday, the report reveled that Israeli youths are bombarded with stereotypic, racist imagery, and their opinions have developed accordingly: Over two-thirds Israeli teen believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together. The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI’s racism poll, taken in March of 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes. Fifty percent of those polled also said they believed Israel should encourage its Arab citizens to emigrate. Racism in Israel is on the rise, said the report: in 2006 there was a 26% increase in racist incidents towards Arabs and the general sense of hatred towards them has doubled. The media, said the ACRI, played a major part in fanning the flame, intensifying the Arab image as negative and terrorizing. The Knesset was not absent from the report as well, as it allows bills which delegitimize Israel’s Arabs citizens before the plenum, preconditions social rights in IDF or national service and make its Arab MKs swear allegiance to a Jewish State. The report devotes a special section to the recently-approved JNF bill, which allows Jewish National Fund land – which make up 13% of all State owned land – to be allocated to Jews only [n.b., this was the actual practice, now it is being encoded in a law]. According to the report, Israeli Arabs are subject to constant racial proofing, which defines them as a security threat; resulting in demeaning and degrading treatment at airports and public venues. Furthermore, in the Second Lebanon War, some 40% of the citizens killed were Israeli-Arabs, mostly due to a severe lack of shelters, but still – the rehabilitation and fortification of Arab towns remains, according to the report, ridiculously low” … The YNet report is here.
Ellen Davidson wrote from Nazareth today that “From 1948 until 1966, Palestinians inside Israel were subject to military law, while Jews lived under civilian law. During that time, 66 percent of Arab-owned land was confiscated … Today, Israeli Palestinians, 20 percent of the population, own 2.5 percent of the land. Discrimination inside Israel falls broadly into four categories, according to Mohammad Zeidan, general director of the Nazareth- based Arab Association for Human Rights (AHR): laws that give different privileges and rights to Jews and non-Jews; indirect discrimination not specifically linked to religion; institutional discrimination, such as allocation of municipal funds; and racism in public life, including cultural discrimination”. Ellen Davidson’s article can be viewed here.
From Ghaleb, who I thank for this, I have learned of this review (written by Amira Howeidy in Al-Ahram) of this electrifying Palestinian* poet’s reappearance in Cairo in 2005: “The last time his name was seen in the news — March 2003 — it was in connection with being arrested and deported to Amman for participating in the anti-war protests on the eve of the US/ UK-led war on Iraq. A week later, Al-Barghouti wrote a poem in colloquial Egyptian Arabic with the intriguing title ‘Alluli betheb Masr‘ (They asked me, do you love Egypt), which circulated rapidly and widely on the Internet before appearing in Akhbar Al-Adab, Cairo’s best known literary journal. The poem was in a sense typical. Then 26 years old, a PhD candidate, Al-Barghouti, the son of Egyptian novelist Radwa Ashour and Palestinian poet Mourid Al-Barghouti, expresses his complex emotions about Egypt, his birthplace and the country where he grew up, often separated from his father (Mourid Al- Barghouti was deported the year his only son was born, and for 15 years, this small family could only meet on holidays), and out of which he was suddenly and unjustly evicted. Images of fear, love, passion and nostalgia alternate with bitter sarcasm and angry political critique. To many the poem marked the beginning of a shift in Egypt’s political climate: it reflected much of what Al-Barghouti calls ‘the collective consciousness” of a new and unusually politically engaged generation. Ironically, on his deportation, the poem sealed his claim to fame … Fascination with his father’s poetry formed only part of the drive to study ‘the language of heroes’, as the seven-year-old Tamim attempted to write his first poem. Of the next 20 years’ yield of poetry — and Al- Barghouti is remarkably prolific — the Egypt and Iraq diwans seem to stand out. Since his first and second collections of poems — Mijana, written in Palestinian colloquial and published in 1999 in Ramallah and El-Manzar (The Scene), in Egyptian colloquial, published by Dar El-Sherouk in 2000, Al-Barghouti has established himself as a master of Arabic language and history — an achievement unmatched in his generation of literati. The poet, who at the age of 28 also teaches political science the American University in Cairo, strives to counter the collective Arab depression, according to which ‘nothing matters’ — a mood that robs people of confidence and concern. (In this sense, indeed, he is a breath of fresh air to many Arab nationalists and others concerned about the gradual extinction of political as much as poetic identity.) The depression, he says, ‘has reached language — we think our language and moral codes are not good enough, men think girls are not pretty enough, girls think men are not men enough’. He pauses, laughing…We do not have that luxury because we do have something worth fighting for. The Arabic language is beautiful, girls are pretty, men are men — and the land is the land. And, yes, a million shoes are stepping on us but the feeling that we deserve this is completely useless. Despite all our failures, we don’t deserve it.” Amira Howeidy’s profile of Tamim Barghouthi was published in Al-Ahram Weekly here.
* I write that Tamim Barghouti is Palestinian, knowing that his father is Palestinian and his mother is Egyptian. From Sameh, who is of exactly the same origins, I have learned that while Egyptian mothers can normally give their nationality to their children — unless the father is Palestinian, in which case, the children must remain Palestinian only…in order not to dilute their wish to return…
As explained in Al-Ahram weekly in August 2006, “Since the groundbreaking decision by President Hosni Mubarak in September 2003 to amend the nationality law to allow the offspring of Egyptian mothers and foreign fathers to become Egyptian citizens (thousands of individuals became citizens) … Still, the nationality law prohibits children of Egyptian mothers and foreign fathers from joining either the Egyptian army or police, or filling certain governmental posts. Also, children of Palestinian fathers are not eligible for Egyptian citizenship. While this seems unfair … it is in accordance with Arab League Decree 1547 for 1959. The decree calls for the preservation of the Palestinian identity as an integral part of the Palestinian cause, and prevents it from assimilating into the identity of the host country“. This explanation is published here.
To see and hear Tamim Barghouti recite his poem on Jerusalem, click here.
As the principals prepare for the start of the Annapolis event — beginning with White House meetings and a dinner in Washington tonight - the Associated Press is reporting that “Bush has been buoyed by Arab endorsement of the meeting and the possibilities for broader peacemaking. He will be asked to use his presidential heft to promote a joint blueprint for talks that are to follow, Israeli and Palestinian officials said Sunday“.
The two sides have not agreed on anything like a blueprint yet.
The AP continued: “On more than one occasion, negotiations have splintered over the key questions of Palestinian statehood — final borders, sovereignty over disputed Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees who lost homes in Israel following its 1948 creation. The Palestinians want the statement to address those issues in general terms. But Israel wants to leave them for post-conference talks, and has pressed for a broader, vaguer statement of commitment to two states living side-by-side in peace. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wasn’t able to bridge the gaps, even after eight missions to the region this year. If the two sides can’t even manage to come up with a shared statement of objectives, that could augur ill for the future of peace talks, which are to be renewed after seven years of still-simmering violence. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met late Sunday with Rice in a last-ditch effort to wrap up the task. ‘We’re confident there will be a document and we’ll get to Annapolis in good shape on that’, but bargaining may continue behind the scenes on Tuesday, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said”.
But, one person is not worried, according to the AP report: “Palestinian negotiator Yasser Abed Rabbo said Palestinians hope to work out a joint document, but that an agreement is not essential because of assurances received in the U.S. invitation to the conference. That invitation, he said, ‘includes all the terms of reference for the future negotiation’ and ‘confirms that both sides are committed’ to putting in place the peace process. ‘This is enough to launch negotiations after the conference’.” The AP report, containing Abed Rabbo’s remarks, is published here.
Abed Rabbo’s remarks do appear to be at odds with the generally-known Palestinian negotiating stance– the Palestinians were widely reported to want a document.
Later, Abed Rabbo told AP: “”We will reach a joint paper today or tomorrow … There is a persistent American effort to have this statement” … Rabbo had said earlier that Palestinians hoped to work out a joint document, but that an agreement was not essential because of assurances received in the U.S. invitation to the conference. That invitation, he said, ‘includes all the terms of reference for the future negotiation’ and ‘confirms that both sides are committed’ to putting in place the peace process. ‘This is enough to launch negotiations after the conference’.”
The AP said that “After months of trying to forge a joint outline, Israel and the Palestinians have made an 11th-hour push in recent days to come up with a statement for presentation at Tuesday’s gathering in Annapolis, Md. It is to be the first time that Israel, a large group of Arab states and international envoys from around the world will sit down together to try to relaunch a peace process. Later Monday, the conference gets under way with a dinner at the State Department”.
The Agence France Press reported that “Palestinian negotiator Yasser Abed Rabbo said the document would be made public later Monday after weeks of behind-the-scenes haggling. ‘This document, which we are due to conclude today with the blessing of the Americans will determine the terms of reference for negotiations — such as the roadmap and international resolutions — and the modalities for negotiations after Annapolis’, he said. And Abed Rabbo said final-status negotiations on core issues such as the status of Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital, the borders of a future Palestinian state and the fate of Palestinian refugees, would be formally launched in Washington in two days time. ‘The negotiations on the final status will begin on Wednesday in the presence of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas’, he told AFP. But a senior Israeli official denied there was an agreement to launch final-status negotiations on Wednesday, which would end a seven-year hiatus. ‘If we still haven’t reached an agreement on a joint document, there is no way we would agree on the launching of final-status talks’, he said. The AFP report on Abed Rabbo’s remarks is here.
Meanwhile, the AP added that “Saeb Erekat, a principal Palestinian negotiator, told The Associated Press on Monday that his side wants, among other things, language providing for the monitoring of two states living side by side in peace and also some specification that a peace treaty should be accomplished before the end of 2008″.
The Palestinian Ma’an news agency reported Sunday that “Israeli sources stated that the Israeli authorities will intensify security measures across the West Bank from Monday until the Annapolis conference is over. Israel radio announced that thousands of Israeli troops will be deployed across the West Bank, specifically in the densely populated areas. Border guards will also be deployed in force along the borders with the Palestinian Territories. Israeli police sources told Israeli radio that the Israeli authorities are worried that bombing operations may take place inside Israel in an attempt to derail the US-sponsored conference due to begin on Tuesday. However, the sources said there was no specific intelligence that such attacks were being planned”. The Ma’an news agency report is here.
A few short hours later, there was apparently “specific intelligence”. Haaretz reported that “Jerusalem police are on high alert Sunday afternoon after receiving a tip according to which two terrorists were en route to Jerusalem in order to carry out an attack in the city ahead of Tuesday’s Middle East peace conference in Annapolis. Authorities suggest the terrorists may be passing through Jerusalem to attack a target in the center of the country, as suicide bombers have done in the past. It remains unclear whether the suspected terrorists have already managed to enter the city. In response to the latest developments, Magen David Adom director-general Eli Bin announced that the alert level in Jerusalem is now at ‘Gimmel’, or stage three, while the alert level in the Dan, Yarkon, and Ayalon districts in the center of the country have been raised to ‘Bet’, or level two. Security forces have erected checkpoints in northern Jerusalem and on Highway 1, the main highway connecting Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. There has been significant movement of ambulances and rescue services on the city’s streets and police helicopters have also been spotted over the capital. Authorities have also deployed the Police Special Anti-Terror Unit in northern Jerusalem. The Narkiss Bridge, which stretches over the French Hill junction and which leads to Jewish neighborhoods in the northern part of the city, including Pisgat Ze’ev and Neve Ya’akov, has been closed to traffic in both directions”. The Haaretz reports that Israeli intelligence believes two terrorists are going to carry out a pre-Annapolis attack is posted here.
Late on Saturdan night in Washington, a plane carrying Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas touched down at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, the Associated Press has reported. The AP said that Abbas said, to journalists aboard his plane, “I am going to Annapolis in an effort to realize the dream of the Palestinian people for an independent state”. Abbas told reporters aboard his plane. The AP also reported that “The Palestinian leader added that the anticipated presence of many foreign leaders at the conference ’shows that the international community is determined to support the peace process’.
Palestinian Pundit summarizes, in a post taken from the Palestine Information Center (PIC) some recent Palestinian reaction to the imminent Annapolis event: “The Hamas Movement on Saturday denounced the participation of Arab countries in the Annapolis conference, describing it as a ‘big shock’ for the Palestinian people. Dr. Sami Abu Zuhri, the Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, said in a press release that no justifications for Arab participation were accepted especially when such participation opens the door wide open for normalization with occupation and comes at a time of continued IOF diggings under the Aqsa Mosque. He further noted that Israel had put the condition of PA recognition of it as a ‘Jewish state’ in order to continue negotiation, and added that the Arabs go to the conference while ignoring the fact that Gaza is facing slow death under the tight Israeli siege. The Palestinian people were expecting an Arab unanimity on breaking the siege rather than unanimously agreeing to attend a meeting with occupation, Abu Zuhri said, affirming, ‘We believe that the meeting would only entail more failure and more harm to the Palestinian and Arab questions and rights’. For his part, MP Dr. Mustafa Al-Barghouthi, the secretary general of the Mubadara party, affirmed that the Annapolis conference had failed before it started. He charged that Israel imposed failure on the conference when it refused to discuss any essential issue such as that of Palestinian refugees, borders, Jerusalem and settlements. The MP deplored the fact that the Palestinian side had allowed the Israelis to pursue such a method. MP Khaleda Jarrar, a PFLP politburo member, stressed that the Palestinian people would reject any bargaining over the right of resistance or any attempt to conclude agreements infringing on the Palestinian basic rights. The popular struggle front secretary general Khaled Abdul Majid has warned of the seriousness of the Annapolis conference. In a statement to PIC, he said that the meeting was solely meant to serve American and Israeli interests, adding that it would serve as a cover up for expected American steps in the region to wipe out resistance and forces of rejection in the region. The popular resistance committees in Gaza warned the conferees in Annapolis against gambling with the Palestinian constants, adding that the meeting would only attempt to endorse occupation’s measures. The PFLP – General Command appealed to the invitees not to go to Annapolis, describing it as a ‘peace mirage’.” The posting on Palestinian Pundit is here.
The Jerusalem Post’s Khaled Abu Toameh, however, writes that “The overall feeling in the Arab world in general and among the Palestinians in particular is that the United States is dragging the Arabs to the Annapolis peace conference against their will. Several Arab leaders, including Palestinian Authority representatives, have been trying over the past few weeks to persuade the Americans that this is not the appropriate time for such conferences, but to no avail. The main reason cited by the Arab leaders is that they don’t believe that the conference will lead to a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process, largely due to Israel’s refusal to fully withdraw to the pre-1967 borders and accept other demands, such as a total freeze in settlement construction, the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners and acknowledging the ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees. But as much as they are afraid of Israel’s ‘intransigence’, Washington’s Arab allies fear the deep divisions and infighting that continue to plague the Arab world. Their major concern is that the Bush administration was planning to exploit the conference to create a US-led coalition to confront Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah“.
The JPost article continues: “The Palestinians are going to the conference at the peak of the bloody power struggle between Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction and Hamas. In addition to Hamas, many other Palestinians are questioning Abbas’s right to represent them at a peace conference where core issues, such as the status of Jerusalem and the refugee problem, are once again on the table. In short, their argument is that he does not have a mandate to make any concessions to Israel on important and fateful issues. On top of all this, Abbas’s negotiating team appears to be divided not only over the Palestinian strategy at the conference, but also over which one of its members will go to Annapolis. The head of the negotiating team, Ahmed Qurei [Abu Ala] is said to be at odds with Yasser Abed Rabbo, one of the leading negotiators. Sources close to the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah also have it that Abbas and his prime minister, Salaam Fayad, have been engaged in a behind-the-scenes power struggle for some time now. According to the sources, Fayad, who ran as head of the independent Third Way party in the January 2006 parliamentary elections, is already preparing himself for the post-Abbas era. Backed by the US and EU, Fayad has managed to consolidate his power in the past few months, much to the dismay of several top officials surrounding Abbas … And since Fayad is the one who’s paying salaries and attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid, there is no doubt that many Palestinians in the West Bank would prefer to see him sitting in Abbas’s seat … Some Palestinians continue to refer to Abbas as the ‘mayor of Ramallah’ because of his limited control over the rest of the West Bank”. The JPost pre-Annapolis analyis of Palestinian and Arab positions is here.
Palestinian commentator Khaled Amayreh, who has previously called on Mahmoud Abbas to resign, wrote last week in an article published by the Ma’an news agency that “Forecasting the failure of the Annapolis meeting is more than speculation. It is a realistic assessment of an event that is not intended to be successful, even if the declared desire suggests otherwise. Indeed, apart from the pleasantries which are meant to create positive atmospherics, Israel and the PA have failed to reach any modicum of agreement on the core issues that define the Palestinian problem. A few weeks ago, PA officials were almost euphoric about the conference. PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas vowed to boycott the Annapolis meeting unless Israel agreed in principle at least to end its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, as well as accept a just settlement of the refugee problem pursuant UN resolution 194. But Israel, of course, agreed to non of that. Now, the PA will go to Annapolis without any assurance policy, relying mainly on George Bush’s ‘good will’, (whatever that means in real terms). I asked one high-ranking PA official in Ramallah this week how come the PA leadership was going to Annapolis, despite the clarion fiasco of the protracted meetings between Israeli and Palestinian officials. Embarrassed by the question, the official said ‘we are going to Annapolis to demonstrate to the world the justice of our cause and the need for a just and durable peace in this volatile region’. I reminded him that ‘we have been doing this for ages but to no avail’. Disquieted by the rejoinder, the official looked rather attentively at me, saying ‘what else can we do? If you have some ideas, convey them to Abu Mazen’ …”
Amayreh’s piece continues: “Abbas looks really very pathetic. He had already placed all his eggs into the American basket which means that he won’t be able to say ‘No’ to the Americans even when he must. This is why all he can do to save his Palestinian Authority, which is actually devoid of any real authority, is to day-dream and implore the werewolf of the White House to press Israel to demonstrate true desire for peace. Day-dreaming, psychologists say, represents the highest degree of frustration. But, as the famous Arab poet Zuheir said more than 1400 years ago, he that doesn’t respect himself shall not be respected by others. Abbass should have himself to blame. He trusted Bush and Olmert too much to the extent that he has become a vanquished supplicant at their doorsteps. He maltreated his people and did many things that should not have been done, all to please and appease Olmert and Bush, but to no avail…”
Amayreh’s latest piece, which is too vitriolic for the pages of Al-Ahram Weekly magazine, to which he contributes regularly, is here.