Treacherous
Road To Oslo
Begins Here
By Ramzy Baroud
11 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Attempts
to coerce Palestinians into submission have not always manifested themselves
in the crude form of a tank, a bullet, the withholding of aid, or the
denial of freedom of movement. These efforts were at times more imaginative
and shrewd, through the sponsoring and espousing of factionalism, the
purchasing of the integrity of a politician, and pressing Palestinians
themselves to promote foreign agendas, whether knowingly or unwittingly.
Coupled with the collective
punishment endowed on Palestinians by the ever-indifferent international
community - Israel's friends in the West and a few Arab and Muslim allies
- such creative methods often reaped the desired results, albeit for
a little while. I became familiar with one of these attempts recently
in London.
It was recently revealed
that a few individuals, affiliated with the Hamas government and Hamas-dominated
parliament were allowed entry into Britain. News of the visit was first
unveiled by the disingenuous Israeli media, which concocted a skewed
version of the event, claiming that the delegation met with Israeli
'academicians' in London.
The 'leak' was unsubstantiated,
but not in its entirety. The 'breakthrough' visit, as was viewed by
several observers, was timed to coincide with another visit made by
a Palestinian figure, who had indeed met with Israelis. The hope though,
was for the government delegation to join the meetings, as a first step
toward 'breaking the ice.'
Disappointingly to many,
Ahmed Youssef, top advisor to the Palestinian prime minister, as well
as a less known member of Parliament - vehemently refused to participate.
Both meetings took place parallel to one another; the Israeli media,
whether by ignorance or by design, assumed that the merger did in fact
take place and reported the Hamas concession worldwide.
If such a meeting had in
fact taken place, national strife and internal Palestinian infighting
would have morphed into a completely new dimension: it could be argued
that what took the once dominant faction, Fatah, many years to concede,
took Hamas eight months.
But the rest of the meetings
in London, and later in Belfast, were not entirely innocent either.
Hamas, a government under siege, backed by most Palestinians, is losing
its grip on power; the Palestinian economy is in complete tatters; factionalism
and chaos are taking hold to the point that iniquitous civil war predictions
are becoming part of mainstream life in Gaza.
Indeed, a siege from within
and without, aided by occasional, but determined Israeli onslaughts
- the latest in Beit Hanun in northern Gaza that has already killed
scores, including peaceful women protestors - is pressuring the government
to desperately seek alternatives.
Even before its advent as
the major political party in the Occupied Territories in January 2006,
Hamas has long wagered on the support of the Arab and Muslim world.
That has proven to be a fatal mistake, since popular displays of solidarity
with the Palestinian people on the streets of Karachi or Tripoli don't
necessary reflect the full and unconditional backing of the Pakistani
and Libyan governments. The latter is dictated by real politic, personal
interests, regional checks and balances, and international obligations
- particularity to the United States government.
The last eight months were
indeed long enough to force Hamas to reconsider its approach to politics:
breaking the siege on Gaza, it deduced, starts in Washington, with Israeli
consent, of course. Washington, however, is a long way from Gaza, since
the distance between the latter and Damascus and Tehran is too close
for comfort from the US viewpoint and its own checks and balances; London,
thus, was the most practicable destination.
The meetings in London were
held under the guise of 'dialogue,' where Hamas would articulate its
position to an exaggeratedly sympathetic audience; and, in turn, the
latter would take their notes and lobby politicians for a change in
course. The content of the meetings, despite the overt secrecy, was
leaked, though not in full, all allowing for the following deductions:
First, neoconservative elements
have for long, (but increasingly since Hamas' political rise) envisaged
an arch of Islamic extremism that goes all the way from Tehran to Gaza,
passing through Damascus and southern Lebanon. Hamas would eventually
become a major component in this arch, due to the symbolic importance
of the Palestinian problem to Muslims worldwide, and the direct nature
of its conflict with Israel.
Second, the attempt to overthrow
Hamas with the help of disgruntled elements within its rival Fatah has
failed; a popular uprising, an outcome of the collective punishment
and pressure on the Palestinian people through the withholding of aid
is too slow and uncertain a strategy. The waiting game is backfiring
as 'extremist' elements within Hamas are predictably falling prey to
Iran's strategic designs, while the 'moderates' are being marginalized
to the political fringes of Gaza. Thus, time was of essence.
Third, since Washington has
raised its conditions for engaging Hamas much higher than the latter's
ability to compromise, it was not possible for the Bush administration
to talk to the Islamic movement openly; the Blair government, however,
who has always left a wide margin to politically reposition itself more
freely in the Middle East has a better chance to engage Hamas, even
if unofficially. The engagement had to be conducted in a most careful
manner, so as not to raise suspicions regarding London's pro US and
Israel stances, or doubt the integrity of its so-called 'war on terror.'
Fourth, the 'discussions'
in London were clearly geared toward wooing Hamas to reveal its moderate
face, thus to offset and perhaps challenge the extremists in Damascus,
therefore, creating yet another rift within the Palestinian camp, to
be added to numerous rifts that already exist within their ranks.
This rift would be much more
treacherous, because it carries all the symptoms of Oslo: good Palestinians
singled out and groomed for a photo op to be scheduled later, secret
'dialogue' followed by 'memorandums of understandings,' then treaties,
then VIP cards to those involved in the positive engagement and lonely
prison cells to those who dare defy it. But it was this exact same plot
that led to the killing of thousands of Palestinians and hundreds of
Israelis, the destruction of thousands of homes, and the confiscation
of more land to make way for the illegal Jewish settlements and the
Separation Wall.
Finally, if history is of
any relevance, Palestinian rights are not personal property with which
to be haggled by one government and inherited by another. Palestinian
territorial rights, especially those of occupied East Jerusalem, the
removal of all Jewish settlements and the Wall, and the right of return
for Palestinian refugees, among all others, are not political decisions
to be made by Hamas, Fatah, or any other Palestinian faction, no matter
how widely represented. Any decision concerning these inalienable rights
is to be determined by national Palestinian consensus, not only of Palestinians
living in the Occupied Territories, but Palestinians in Diaspora as
well.
All Palestinians and those
who genuinely support their rights must continue to call on the international
community and world media to urgently rewrite their priorities, to refrain
from asking concessions from a besieged, occupied, and starved nation,
and to focus their collective efforts to bring an end to the Israeli
occupation, for all the ills of the region begin there, and rationally,
it is there that they must end.
Ramzy Baroud's
latest book: The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's
Struggle (Pluto Press, London) is now available in the US from the University
of Michigan Press and from Amazon.com
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights