Pacific Free Press was launched in March 2007 by Dutch-Canadian Richard
Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands along with Chris Cook- CFUV radio journalist and Editor in Chief of Pacific Free Press. Cook is based in , Victoria, British Columbia.
The mission of Pacific Free Press is simple: to dig out nuggets of truth from
the slag-heap of lies, ignorance and witless diversion that has buried
public discourse today. Pacific Free Press provides a new venue for
disseminating hard news and insightful, fact-based analysis of the
harsh realities too often ignored or distorted by the mainstream press.
Mixed Priorities: Why Palestinian Unity is Not an Option
by Ramzy Baroud Just days after the Hamas-Fatah clash last June in Gaza, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas looked firm and composed as he shook hands with members of his new emergency government. He made sure his move appeared as legitimate as possible, issuing decrees that outlawed the armed militias of Hamas, and also suspended consequential clauses in the Palestinian Basic Law, which had thus far served as a constitution.
The Basic Law stipulates that the Palestinian parliament must approve of any government for it to be constitutional. Abbas simply decreed that such a clause was no longer valid, effectively robbing Palestinians of one of their greatest collective achievements — democracy.
This system, when truly representative, is indeed precious and
meaningful. Considering the impossible circumstances under which
Palestinian democracy in particular was spawned and nurtured — military
occupation, international pressure, extreme poverty — it was also
deeply historic. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that followed the
US occupation in Iraq, Arabs showed themselves as ultimately capable of
carrying out democratic process.
Unfortunately, the achievement of democracy cannot guarantee its preservation.
Almost
immediately after Hamas’ sizable election victory in January 2006, both
local and international forces scrambled to suffocate and reverse the
outcome of this vote. Conceited intellectuals wrote about the
incompatibility of Islam and democracy, politicians decried Hamas’
victory as signalling the encroachment of militarism and extremism, and
world leaders clambered to affiliate themselves with the ‘legitimate’
Abbas, as opposed to the ‘illegitimate’ Hamas. Indeed, it was a
mockery.
For Israel, the clash between Abbas’ Fatah and
Islamic Hamas was a golden opportunity, one that is comparable to the
benefits gleaned from another opportune moment, the terrorist attacks
of September 11. The latter was recently — and not for the first time —
described by Israeli Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu as good for Israel
(Haaretz, April 16).
The Palestinian fight was also good for
Israel; no longer would the nuisance of Palestinian democracy compete
with Israel’s self-ascribed “only democracy in the Middle East.” More,
Palestinians were once again depicted as the unruly mob, incapable of
producing responsible peacemakers and creating an environment of
‘security’, which the state of Israel so often claims to covet.
As
for Abbas and his ministers, they knew too well that the newfound
American-Israeli fondness for them was conditional. After all they are
the same people, holding the same position and playing the same roles
that they have always played. They are the ministers, aides, friends
and officials of late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat,
who were, like their president, repeatedly shunned. They also
understood well their new appeal in representing the antithesis to
Hamas. Rather than rejecting the role of the stooges, Abbas’ cabinet
ministers played along.
Suddenly the conflict that was
hitherto seen as one between Israel and the Palestinians became one
between Abbas and his supporters (Israel and the US) on one hand, and
Hamas alone on the other. The problem as reported in mainstream media
ceased being about settlements, occupation, and violations of
international law, but rather about the anti-democratic ‘forces of
darkness’ in Gaza as opposed to the forces of peace and civilization in
Ramallah and Tel Aviv.
To re-enforce these highly deceptive images with
‘action’, Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert initiated their
quest for illusive peace. This started in Annapolis and was followed by
regular, although equally futile ‘rounds’ of talks in Israel. Few
expected such meets to yield any meaningful outcomes; they were clearly
intended only to further isolate Hamas and underscore the Abbas-Israeli
alliance.
In order for the show to go on, Hamas and Fatah will
not be allowed to reconcile, at least not until Israel and the US
decide to change tactics. Of course this doesn’t mean that there is no
basis for reconciliation. Palestinian factionalism equals capitulation
in the face of a harsh, emboldened enemy. Recently we have seen the
2005 Cairo Agreement, the 2007 Mecca Agreement and the March 2008 Yemen
Agreement. But to win the approval of Israel in the West Bank — and to
avoid the tragic fate of Gaza — Abbas is not interested in the points
of agreement, but rather in the points of discord. Aljazeera reported
that Azzam al-Ahmad, the Fatah member who signed the Hamas-Fatah
memorandum in March, was chastised openly for keeping Abbas “in the
dark”, regarding the nature of the agreement.
Al-Ahmad insisted that
Abbas knew exactly what the agreement stipulated. It seems that a
document that merely highlights a course of action towards full
reconciliation between the two parties was too much for Israel to
accept. Not even the blood of over 120 Palestinians in Gaza, who were
killed in the matter of six days in early March, seemed a strong enough
motive to override Israel’s threats of Palestinian unity signalling the
end of the futile ‘peace process’.
And, of course, there is the
money trail. Just days before the Yemen fiasco, the US had agreed to
transfer $150 million in support to the Palestinian Authority as “part
of past pledges to boost President Mahmoud Abbas’ government.” Boost
against whom? Surely not Israel.
Palestinian Prime Minister
Salam Fayyad reportedly said it was “the largest sum of assistance of
any kind to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority by any donor in
one tranche since the Palestinian Authority’s inception (in 1994).”
Heart-rending indeed, Mr. Fayyad, but one must wonder how much of the
money will go to feed the starving in Gaza, or rehabilitate the refugee
camps of the West Bank?
While such noble efforts by the UN’s
John Dugard, former US President Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu
have brought much needed attention to the plight of Palestinians and
Gazans in particular, PA officials are too busy attending donor’s
conferences and issuing empty statements which few even bother to read.
They act as if they are a neutral party caught in the middle of
religious fanatics and Israel. Their fight no longer seems even
remotely related to Palestine or its people. These are hardly the
qualities of any liberation movement or leadership anywhere, in any
period of history, recent or otherwise. Neither Abbas nor Fayyad are
likely to be the exception.
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net)
is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been
published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is
The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle
(Pluto Press, London).
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
