Doc's Talk: Hamas Challenge to the PLO: Opportunities and Prospects

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Hamas Challenge to the PLO: Opportunities and Prospects

Mohammad Yaghi

Speaking at a January 28 "Gaza Victory" rally in Qatar, Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashal announced the start of a new campaign -- not against Israel but against the Fatah-led Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Declaring Hamas's intention to replace the PLO with a new body that would serve the Islamist group's agenda of "resistance," Mashal charged, "At this moment, the PLO is no longer a unifying point of reference, but has become impotent and a tool for deepening Palestinian divisions." Hamas's efforts to take over or replace the PLO represent a severe challenge to Palestinian moderates who have been weakened by stagnation in the peace process and the Israeli military action in Gaza. The outcome of this political struggle will shape the future of Palestinian politics and the prospects for peace.

Background
A decade after its creation in 1964, the PLO was recognized as the Palestinians' sole legitimate representative at the Arab League's 1974 summit in Rabat. Since then, the PLO has served as the diplomatic face of the Palestinians, negotiating the Oslo Accords with Israel and creating the Palestinian Authority (PA) under its auspices. The PLO -- and not the PA -- handles negotiations with Israel and operates embassies and diplomatic missions around the world.

Although it includes a number of Palestinian political factions, the PLO has been dominated by Fatah since 1968. Hamas and its political forebears in the Muslim Brotherhood have never accepted the legitimacy of the PLO: after a failed attempt to join the PLO in 1991, Hamas waged an ongoing battle against the organization and its efforts to negotiate with Israel, primarily through perpetrating suicide attacks that undermined the peace process.

It was not until March 2005, shortly after Arafat's death and the election of Mahmoud Abbas as PA president, that Hamas and Fatah reached an agreement in Cairo that outlined a yearlong truce with Israel, the holding of legislative elections, the reform of the PLO, and the inclusion of Hamas; however, the PLO has not expanded to include Hamas, despite Hamas's continued demands in subsequent factional talks. For its part, Fatah has remained intransigent, particularly after losing the legislative election in 2006, because it fears giving up its privileged position as the official Palestinian representative.

The Opportunity
In the aftermath of the fighting in Gaza, Hamas interprets both the domestic and regional conditions as ripe for a move against the PLO.

On the Palestinian domestic level, Hamas views Fatah as weakened and seeks to manipulate Fatah's divisions in order to advance its own aims. Abbas faces ongoing sharp criticism from his own Fatah party, including members of Fatah's Central Committee who have urged him to visit Damascus and reconcile with Hamas. The younger generation of Fatah, many of whom support Marwan Barghouti (who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison for attacks inside Israel), has interpreted Fatah's paralysis during the Gaza crisis as a further sign of the weakness of the movement's current leadership and have urged Abbas to form a new emergency leadership within Fatah. Complicating matters for Abbas, his Tunis-based rival in Fatah, Farouq Kaddoumi, who remained outside the PA in opposition to the Oslo process, has raised the prospect of joining Mashal in opposition to the PLO.

Regionally, Hamas interpreted the demonstrations throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds expressing sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza as evidence of its popularity and the lack of support for the PLO. Hamas read its invitation to a prospective summit organized by Qatar, which although it failed to reach a quorum was attended by thirteen Arab leaders, as a sign that most Arab states are inclined to support its efforts to control the PLO. Despite favoring Abbas, even the Egypt-led moderate Arab camp appears to be publicly keeping an equal distance from Hamas and Fatah. This position appears to be a calibrated effort to minimize domestic dissent. For this reason, Amr Mousa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, announced that Gaza reconstruction aid would be channeled through an independent body rather than through Hamas or the PA.

The Plot
Hamas is acting on four fronts to increase the pressure on Fatah to cede control of the PLO:

Preventing reconciliation. Hamas has significantly raised the ante for agreeing to let reconciliation talks with Fatah proceed. Before the Gaza crisis, it simply demanded that Fatah release Hamas activists from PA jails. Now, Hamas demands that Abbas end security coordination with Israel, stop negotiations, and accept a political program based on "resistance."

Dividing Fatah. By announcing that he "accepts all the principles on which Fatah was founded," Mashal is making a concerted effort to appeal to Fatah activists who prefer "resistance" over negotiations, including members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Gaza who participated in the recent fighting with Israel and other Fatah members who joined pro-Hamas demonstrations. Hamas's media deliberately distinguishes between Abbas and his supporters and the rest of the Fatah movement, and praises Fatah elements who publicly disparage Abbas. But while Hamas may be wooing some members of Fatah, it is killing others, using the recent fighting to get rid of potential Fatah opponents in Gaza. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza reported that "thirty-two Palestinians have been killed and tens injured and tortured by Palestinian hands during the fight and its aftermath." Ibrahim Abu Naja, a Fatah leader in Gaza, reported that "Eight of the killed at least are Fatah members and supporters."

Appealing to the Palestinian diaspora. For the past six years, Hamas has been engaged in a campaign to win the support of the Palestinian community outside the Palestinian territories by focusing its political platform on demanding the right of return for Palestinian refugees and questioning their representation in the PLO. For this purpose, Hamas gathers Palestinian nonprofit organizations and respected Palestinian personalities in a large conference every year. The 2008 assembly, held in Copenhagen, was attended by 5,000 Palestinians, most of whom live in Europe. Today, evidence suggests that the majority of Palestinians in the diaspora communities support Hamas, which has benefited from the almost total absence of PLO engagement with Palestinian diaspora communities since the Oslo agreement.

Reaching out to Arab and Muslim thinkers. During the war, al-Jazeera satellite television served as a podium for pan-Arabists, Islamist thinkers, and public opinion leaders who oppose Abbas to shape Arab and Palestinian public opinion.

The Prospects
Despite the political weakness of Fatah and Abbas and the increasing support for Hamas (reflected in recent polls conducted by al-Najah University and the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center), it is difficult to see a way that Hamas could gain control of the PLO without Fatah's surrender. Further, Fatah's allies in the PLO, such as the Palestinian Popular Front and the Palestinian Democratic Front, will not accept Hamas's leadership since they differ fundamentally with its political and social agendas. Forming a parallel body to the PLO would also entail risks for Hamas, primarily since such a move would motivate Fatah to resolve its internal problems and unite in opposition. After Hamas violently seized Gaza, Fatah's unity increased for the first time in years.

On a regional level, even the Arab states that clearly side with Hamas in its struggle against Abbas have no true interest in seeing Hamas assume full control of the PLO as long as it retains its rejectionist political program. Arab states, including Syria, recognize that there is no way to sell Hamas to the international community until Hamas accepts the principle of a two-state solution and is willing to negotiate with Israel on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions.

Despite the limited short-term prospects for Hamas control of the PLO, so long as Abbas and Fatah remain weak, the PLO will only become more fragile. U.S. efforts to back Abbas by reactivating the peace process, providing sustainable economic assistance to the PA, and mobilizing support among moderate Arab states are all essential to ensuring Fatah's continued control of the PLO. Abbas must also play his part by assuming an active leadership role in Fatah to revitalize the movement -- something he has been loath to undertake to date.

Mohammad Yaghi is a Lafer international fellow at The Washington Institute, focusing on Palestinian politics.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk