Arlene Kushner
Can “strengthening” Mahmoud Abbas and his party improve the situation in the Middle East?
There is a prevailing notion in Western diplomatic circles today that Hamas – and only Hamas – is the stumbling block to a successful negotiation of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to this thinking, Fatah – and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in particular – are essentially“moderate” in outlook and should be strengthened in the interests of achieving that peace.
The question remains: Can this approach be substantiated? Is the Fatah indeed
“moderate”? Would it sustain a genuine peace with Israel?
Statements offered to a Western world eager to embrace peace are easy to proclaim.
These statements represent a major difference in policy between Fatah and Hamas:
While Hamas is boldly belligerent and declares its intentions outright, Fatah appears to play the game. But this difference is one of style and not of ultimate intentions.
A review of salient facts dispels the notion that Fatah is “moderate.”
The argument has been made that it was the influence of Arafat that caused Fatah to lack moderation, and that we are seeing a “new” Fatah since Arafat’s death. There is scant evidence to support this.
In the battle currently ensuing between Fatah and Hamas, is it reasonable – on the face of the evidence – to support and bolster Fatah with the expectation that it would genuinely pursue peace? The inescapable conclusion is that this is not a reasonable expectation.
We begin by looking at the Fatah of today, for this is of immediate concern.
We then turn to a broader look at Fatah, and a consideration of the years leading up to the present. No accurate understanding of Fatah would be possible without this perspective. What we find is that, while style may have changed, the essence of Fatah goals and policies have not.
No comments:
Post a Comment