Opinion Editorials, March 2011

Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, March 8, 2011

In his article entitled "Till September, The PA's Meaningless Deadlines," dated February 28, Ramzy Baroud fails to present the real picture of the Palestinian situation today.

Characterizing the Palestinian leadership as a ‘‘self designated Palestinian leadership in the West Bank’’, Mr. Baroud wittingly ignores some facts while distorts others. In fact, it was Hamas that has refused until this day to sign the Egyptian brokered reconciliation agreement.  

The so called “Palestine papers” have not revealed a single official agreement or document that offers concessions.  Rather the majority of the documents were internal draft summaries of meetings taken in shorthand and intended for personal use only.

Moreover, Baroud’s failure to differentiate between official positions and explorations or polemical rhetoric during the course of negotiations shows a lack of knowledge or a deliberate distortion.  A responsible and careful reading of the minutes and official Palestinian positions reveals that Palestinian negotiators were insistent on the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

The issues discussed were mechanisms by which Palestinian rights would be realized, rather than forfeited as claimed. For example, the Palestinian position on territory never deviated from the 1967 borders and illegality of settlements. However, there was a willingness to discuss Israeli and U.S proposals for land swaps, only if equal in size and value, as a possible way to establish the 1967 lines as a base line for borders given the complicated reality on the ground created by Israel’s illegal colonial policies.

Similarly, with regards to the right of return: The Palestinian position emphasized Israel’s responsibility for the creation and perpetuation of Palestinian refugehood and demanded Israeli recognition of responsibility and the right of return, the latter being an individual right that cannot be negotiated away.

That was the point of departure for the Palestinian position which sought to negotiate a mechanism for the implementation of the right of return as well as the empowerment and respect for the decision of each Palestinian refugee.

As for my resignation, it was not a cynical attempt to shift attention or retain credibility as claimed by Baroud.  No one in the leadership ever shied from a serious open discussion on any of the issues. Rather, the resignation was the natural course of action for any official who holds dear the values of accountability and personal responsibility.  

If I did not resign, Mr. Baroud would vehemently attack the lack of accountability in the Palestinian system.  Lastly, the author wrongly characterizes the call for elections as a tactical move on the part of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The call came after numerous failures of reconciliation attempts as a way to move past the deadlock and overcome the crippling political divide by returning to the source of authority, the Palestinian people.  

The PA elections, however, are not a substitute for self-determination or for the end of the occupation. Currently, the dismantlement of the PA is under consideration because the PA is not and has never been an end in and of itself, but rather a milestone on the road to independence.

Dr. Saeb Erakat

Member of PLO Executive Committee

======================================

Till September:

The PA's Meaningless Deadlines

By Ramzy Baroud

Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 28, 2011

 
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his supporters in the Fatah party want us to believe that dramatic changes are underway in the occupied Palestinian territories.
 
This is part of a strategy intended to offset any public dissatisfaction with the self-designated Palestinian leadership in the West Bank. The PA hopes the ‘news’ will create enough distraction to help it survive the current climate of major public-regime showdowns engulfing the Middle East.
 
Anticipating a potential popular uprising in the occupied territories - which could result in a major revamping of the current power, to the disadvantage of Abbas - the PA is now taking preventive measures.
 
First, there was the resignation of the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Ereka on February 12. Erekat was clearly implicated in negotiating, if not squandering, Palestinian rights in successive meetings with Israeli and American officials. This was revealed through nearly 1,600 leaked documents, which Aljazeera and the Guardian termed the ‘Palestine Papers’.
 
Erekat was hardly representing himself, as he readily gave away much territory, including most of Jerusalem. He also agreed to a symbolic return of Palestinian refugees to their land, now part of today’s Israel. By keeping his post, the entire PA ‘peace process’ apparatus would have remained ineffective at best, and at worst entirely self-seeking, showing no regard whatsoever for Palestinian rights.
 
With Erekat’s exit, the PA hopes to retain a margin of credibility among Palestinians.
 
Erekat, who made his entrance to the world of ‘peace process’ at the Madrid peace conference in 1991, opted out in a way that conceded no guilt. He claimed to have left merely because the leak happened through his office. The PA expects us to believe that, unlike other Arab governments, it functions in a transparent and self-correcting manner. Erekat wants to be seen as an “example of accountability”, according to the Washington Post (February 16). He claimed: “I'm making myself pay the price for the mistake I committed, my negligence. These are the ethics and the standards. Palestinian officials need to start putting them in their minds.”
 
The message is neatly coined, although it belittles the real issue at stake. This has caused much outrage in Palestinian intellectual, political and public circles. Negligence is one thing, and relinquishing a people’s rights is another entirely.
 
Two days after Erekat’s departure, the PA cabinet in the West Bank also suddenly resigned. The cabinet had met earlier that day, and its Prime Minister Salam Fayyad then submitted his resignation to President Abbas. The latter, in turn, accepted the resignation and immediately reappointed Fayyad to form a new government. An exercise in futility? Of course, but for a good reason.
 
The resignation was merely tactical. It aimed at quelling the current popular discontent and preventing it from spilling over into street protests. But it was also tactless, for it reintroduced the very man who formed the old government to assemble a new one. If indeed Fayyad’s political performance was lacking - and thus deserving of rebuke and mass resignation – then what is the point of putting the same man in charge of yet another phase of inefficiency and ineffectiveness?
 
The dramatic move was meant to show the people that the PA did not need a popular uprising to initiate reforms and change. Fayyad was reappointed because he is valuable to the current political structure of the PA, and he’s also the most trusted Palestinian official as far as the US is concerned.
 
Then, on top of all this, the PA cleverly set September as a deadline for elections in the occupied territories. This date acquired a compounded value when Western officials began assigning other great expectations to September as well. One such call was made by EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, who expressed her hopes – along with those of the ‘international community’ - that a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians would be reached by September.
 
Based on the current political reality – a rejectionist Israeli front, a Palestinian front that is polarized and largely self-seeking, and a US-led Western front that is incapable of doing much more than pressing the Palestinians for more concessions – we know only too well that no peace will come in September.
 
Abbas, a pragmatic man by his own admission, knows this as well. The September deadline is largely aimed at creating further distraction. If all eyes are focused on that date, there will be no need to worry about the here and now.
 
But September is also not too far off, a reality that calls for some early steps. Hamas expectedly rejected the call for elections without a platform of political and territorial unity. Why should Hamas get involved in another election if any unfavorable outcome will only bring further punishment to the Palestinian people? A sound concern, of course, but that rejection allowed Abbas, on February 17, to condition the elections based on Hamas’ participation. In other words, Hamas is once more positioned as the hurdle that stands between the Palestinians and unity, political normalcy and democracy. Now Hamas will be continually derided for delaying the ‘Palestinian national project’, until September leisurely arrives and disappears, leaving behind no mark of meaningful change.
 
Abbas and his trusted men already know the outcome of this endeavor. In their defense, the strategy also has little to do with September, elections or Hamas’ position. It is aimed at deepening the divide among Palestinians, and distract from the main problem, which is the fact that the PA serves no purpose other than managing the administrative side of the Israeli military occupation. The PA is devoid of any national value to the Palestinian people, and only serves the interests of those involved in subjugating them. The Palestinians are now required to move past this dismal political moment and seek an alternative - an all-inclusive, representative and truly democratic institution to lead the next stage in their fight for freedom.
 
The PA wants to stall until September. But will Palestinians wait that long?
 
- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, LondonS), available on Amazon.com.

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.

editor@aljazeerah.info & editor@ccun.org