Doc's Talk: Palestinian Perspectives on a Unity Government

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Palestinian Perspectives on a Unity Government

Mohammad Yaghi
March 11, 2009

On March 10, Fatah and Hamas began a new round of talks in Cairo that center on creating a Palestinian national unity government, reorganizing security forces, reforming the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and holding elections. Despite both sides having incentives to reconcile, fundamental disagreements make a comprehensive political agreement unlikely, and the probable outcome of the talks will be an interim settlement aimed at reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Even so, both sides may see a unity government as has having some advantages, and if the talks progress, Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas will need to balance the promise of such an arrangement with the likely perils: harming improved economic conditions in West Bank, curtailing aid flows from Washington, and undercutting security ties with the United States and Israel. For its part, Israel may not view a unity government as being in its interest and could use levers to undermine either its formation or its effectiveness. Incentives for Abbas
Although Abbas has avoided unity talks with Hamas since the group's 2007 takeover of Gaza, three factors are now pushing him toward reconciliation. First, Abbas's ties to Egypt have grown since the 2007 takeover. Cairo's rejection of Hamas authority in Gaza, its refusal to open the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza, and its insistence on Abbas's legitimacy despite the expiration of his presidential term in January 2009 make it difficult for Abbas to rebuff the Egyptian initiative for dialogue. Furthermore, Abbas believes the Egyptians -- unlike previous intermediaries -- will press Hamas to compromise.

Second, the prospect of a right-wing Israeli government has convinced Abbas to rearrange his house immediately. When Binyamin Netanyahu comes to power, Abbas believes the peace process will head toward stalemate. Abbas also faces increasing calls by influential Palestinians to discontinue negotiations with Israel as long as settlement activity continues. In Abbas's view, a unity government supported by Arab countries and the international community would help keep the peace process alive.

Finally, pressure is mounting on Abbas from important constituencies within Fatah. Ahmed Qurei and Marwan Barghouthi's blocs believe that Abbas's conduct during the Israeli incursion in Gaza hurt the movement's popularity and that easing the conditions for dialogue would boost Fatah's popularity and allow it to blame Hamas if the talks fail. Furthermore, reconciliation with Hamas would help improve Fatah's organizational strength in Gaza by ending Hamas's organized campaign to kill or imprison Fatah members and shutter its civil society organizations. A unity agreement would also allow Abbas to extend his term in office and gain broader legitimacy among Palestinians.

Incentives for Hamas
Hamas's top priorities include facilitating the flow of reconstruction aid into Gaza, ending the PA campaign against Hamas activists in the West Bank, and ensuring the continued financial support of Arab states.

The economic siege and destruction of Gaza have created a difficult environment for Hamas to maintain public support in the Strip. A lack of funds and closed border crossings hamper efforts to begin the estimated $2.8 billion reconstruction. Hamas believes an agreement with Fatah would ensure the flow of money and material into Gaza and give it a managing role at the Rafah border crossing. Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Abu al-Ghait has seemed to accept this arrangement, stating that his government "cannot ignore the force [that] exists on the ground when the Rafah crossing is opened."

A unity government would also eliminate the constraints on Hamas activities in the West Bank. An agreement would reopen Hamas's social and charitable organizations and release the more than 400 Hamas activists in PA prisons. Among Arab states, there is growing support for Palestinian unity. In fact, the Gulf states refused to channel their $1.65 billion Gaza reconstruction pledge through either the PA or Hamas, electing instead to set up an independent Arab League mechanism.

The Fayad Factor
Hamas views PA prime minister Salam Fayad as a foe, and many in Fatah are also wary, viewing him as a competitor appointed by Abbas to ensure the flow of money to the PA. While Fayad has earned international confidence for running a transparent financial system, he is still an independent without a political base and depends to a large extent on Abbas's support.

On March 7, Fayad announced his intention to resign for three reasons. First, if the Cairo talks succeed, Fayad is unlikely to remain prime minister, since Hamas wants him removed and Fatah will not defend him. Hamas holds him responsible for arresting its activists in the West Bank, closing Hamas charitable organizations, and dismissing its employees from the PA. Fatah officials have long clashed with Fayad over his refusal to cede ministries to Fatah, his early retirement plan for PLO and security forces employees, and his control of the PA financial system.

Second, the Arab states' decision to bypass Fayad's PA government in delivering reconstruction money was a sign that they consider his government part of the problem between Fatah and Hamas. As such, Fayad is convinced that Abbas will not be able to withstand the pressure from the Arab states to reconcile with Hamas.

Third, despite the huge international aid pledges during the December 2007 Paris conference, Fayad has faced a monthly financial crisis since August 2008. Delays in transferring donor monies have forced a frustrated Fayad to suspend civil servant salaries and borrow from banks.

Nonetheless, since Abbas has asked Fayad to remain in his post until the new government is formed by the end of March, Fayad may have a chance to remain prime minister if the Cairo talks fail.

The Prospects
Although Hamas and Fatah have failed to implement a February 27 confidence-building agreement calling for prisoner releases and an end to media incitement, both seem keen to strike a deal. Fatah and Hamas will struggle, however, to resolve three areas of fundamental disagreement.

Government. Abbas's approval of a new Palestinian government is conditional on Hamas's acceptance of PLO obligations, including past agreements with Israel and the principle of a two-state solution. Abbas prefers forming a government comprised mainly of independents who accept his conditions. But Hamas seeks a unity government that would, in Hamas political leader Khaled Mashal's words, "protect the resistance and the Palestinian national constants." Mahmoud Zahar, former foreign minister in the Hamas government, declared that "a government of independents is going to be weak and ineffective" and that his movement accepts a Palestinian state on the prewar lines of 1967 but does not accept a two-state solution.

Security forces. Abbas wants his forces to return to Gaza and expand the security forces reform program, supervised by the U.S. security coordinator, Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, to include Gaza. Hamas aims to reverse the reform plan by reorganizing the security forces and redefining their mission to include Palestinian "resistance" against Israel.

PLO. Reforming the PLO is a top Hamas priority. Hamas placed Musa Abu Marzouq and Mahmoud Zahar, two of its top leaders, on the PLO committee charged with developing a mechanism to implement the March 2005 Cairo agreement, which called for expanding and reforming the PLO. Fatah, on the other hand, has appointed a lower-level official, Zakaria al-Agha, to the committee, indicating that it is in no rush to reform the PLO.

Despite their differences, the intervention of Arab states, Hamas pressure, and Fatah's own needs may well produce an interim government to facilitate the reconstruction of Gaza and to cope with the new right-leaning Israeli government. Beyond that, what divides Fatah and Hamas will remain in place.

The duration of a possible agreement depends largely on the reaction of the international community. U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton reiterated at the recent Sharm al-Shaikh summit that the Quartet's conditions for dealing with any Palestinian government will likely remain valid no matter what comes out of the Cairo dialogue. The Israeli reaction will also be vital: a prisoner exchange that includes the increasingly popular Marwan Barghouthi, currently in an Israeli prison, would strengthen the agreement between Hamas and Fatah considering that he favors reconciliation with Hamas. If, however, Israel keeps the crossings closed and Gaza reconstruction does not move forward, Hamas will have little incentive to keep the agreement with Fatah.

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