When a Palestinian Intellectual Praises Israeli Democracy

Following the recent Israeli elections, 'Imad Al-Falouji, head of the Gaza-based Institute for Intercultural Dialogue, wrote an article titled "Israel's Democracy and Our Anarchy." Falouji is a former Hamas member who left the movement in 1996 and later served as information minister and as an advisor under Yasser Arafat. In his article he praised Israel's way of handling controversy, and also praised the Israeli political parties for concerning themselves with the citizens' wellbeing and with domains such as economy, education and security; this, in contrast to Palestinian parties which, he said, are concerned mostly with political grandstanding and do not seek solutions to the people's everyday problems. He called upon the Palestinians to emulate the Israeli Arabs who united their ranks in order to bring about change.

MEMRI..
Special Dispatch No.5998..
19 March

The following are excerpts from his article:[1]

"There is no shame in seeing reality as it is, and no wisdom in becoming experts [only] at cursing and disparaging our enemy. I know how difficult it is to compare the internal Palestinian situation – our shaping of our policy, the internal relations among us and our ways of resolving our differences – with the domestic situation of the enemy that is occupying our lands, usurping our holy sites, and denying our most minimal rights. But this enemy is proving to us and to the international community that, despite its tyranny and aggression, it surpasses us in many ways that are no longer hidden from any observer possessing a minimal degree of objectivity...

"Anyone examining the Israeli entity is amazed by the extent of internal disagreement on every issue between the religious and secular [sectors], and [also] by the disagreements within the sectors. They have a [political] right, center and left... and every perception has proponents and opponents and every senior has an [entire] dossier of charges against him. But, despite all this, they have passed laws that govern [the handling of] these disagreements and set out a common goal: that of serving the State of Israel and the people of Israel. They manage to use the internal disagreements as a source of strength...

"But we, 'the possessors of truth' – look at what is happening to us. We strike out in every direction without an agreed-upon plan or purpose. Each party or group has its own plan and goal. We do not believe in a unifying means. We renounce all the laws and charters, and have destroyed everything that united us. Each group claims to possess the absolute truth and [presents] the others' [beliefs] as absolute lies. We do not possess the ability to listen to the other. Anarchy rules the day: political, economic, social and even conceptual anarchy.

Peace Can’t Be Built on Presidential Hubris

Jonathan Tobin

Contentions/Commentary

15 September 09

The New York Times returns to one of its favorite hobbyhorses today when it again attempts to shift the blame for the current impasse in the Middle East to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Times editorial, titled “Squandering the Moment,” starts off with the astonishing assertion that the current situation is “the best chance for Middle East peace in nearly a decade.” The piece backs up that dubious premise by saying, “President Obama is committed to serious negotiations and, for now, there is a lull in regional violence.”

But this is, of course, nonsense. There have been lulls before, even during the last violent decade that was marked by Palestinian terrorism directed at Israeli cities and rocket fire on its southern towns and villages. And though the Times’s editorialists have adopted the self-congratulatory stance of the president and his acolytes, Obama is no more committed to the idea of Middle East peace than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush was. Though liberals are loath to give any credit to the latter, it should be remembered that it was he who first proclaimed America’s support for the concept of a Palestinian state in peaceful coexistence with Israel, though it should be noted that in making that concession, he was no more or less successful than any other American leader in getting the Palestinians to buy into the notion that they could acquire sovereignty in exchange for recognizing the legitimacy of their Israeli neighbors.

And that not inconsiderable point is the crux of the fallacy that forms the basis of not only the Times editorial but also the policies of the Obama administration. The focus on Jewish settlements has served to divert the world’s attention from this fact, but Palestinian rejectionism remains the key issue, as has been proved over and again since Yasir Arafat rejected a state in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem in July 2000. Arafat’s successor Mahmoud Abbas repeated this performance when Ehud Olmert desperately tried last year to make peace. Indeed, the “moderate” Abbas made it clear in interviews with the Western press this year that he wasn’t even inclined to talk to Israel. As Israel has demonstrated time and again, anytime there is an actual partner for peace, the existence of settlements in disputed territories is no impediment to Israeli concessions.

The failure of Obama to cajole America’s Arab allies into even the tamest of confidence-building measures toward Israel stems from the same problem that has little to do with anything Netanyahu does or does not do. The result of several generations of fomenting hate against Israel and Jews in Palestinian society as well as in the wider Arab and Islamic world means that the constituency for peace there is virtually nonexistent.

An understanding of this dismal reality underpins the widespread support within Israel for Netanyahu’s attempt to stand up to Obama while still stating Israel’s willingness to make peace in the unlikely event that the Palestinians change their tune. Unlike American Jews, the majority of whose understanding of the situation is filtered through their partisan loyalties to the Democrats, wishful thinking about the peace process, and an unwillingness to confront the facts about the Palestinians, the vast majority of Israelis have given up their illusions about peace. So when the Times encourages Obama to “prod Mr. Netanyahu toward bolder action by making a direct—and better—case to a skeptical Israeli public on why a settlement freeze and reviving peace talks is in its interest,” it is not only overestimating Obama’s considerable rhetorical powers but also asking Israelis to ignore the inconvenient facts about the Palestinian political culture, which views any recognition of the Jewish state as unacceptable. Whatever their opinions about the value or the wisdom of some settlements might be, the majority of Israelis understand that the argument about a freeze on building in Jerusalem and the areas surrounding it has little to do with the actual prospects for peace. That is why in Israel, Obama is the most unpopular American president in recent memory.

The summit that Obama will host at the meeting of the United Nations this month will lead, as have past attempts by more skillful diplomats than the president, to nothing—simply because a Palestinian people divided between Fatah and Hamas are constitutionally incapable of recognizing the legitimacy of a Jewish state under any circumstances or within any borders. The idea that the presence of Barack Obama in the White House renders this a “moment” that holds an opportunity for peace is nothing but hubris on the part of the president and hero worship on the part of his followers.

.

Why There Won't Be Peace: A Short Analysis of Palestinian Leadership, Factions, and Strategies

By Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
21 August 09

Palestinian politics and ideology is the key to understanding why there is no peace and no Palestinian state. The extremism of Hamas is an important indicator of these problems and a roadblock to such progress. But it is the situation in Fatah that remains the dominant factor. This article explains the current political line-up and different strategies being advocated in the Fatah-Palestinian Authority framework.

Nobody Advocates A Realistic Peace Program

This part is easy to understand. Nobody in the movement openly advocates accepting things like territorial swaps, security guarantees, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, resettlement of Palestinians only in Palestine, definitively ending the conflict in exchange for an independent state, or other point’s key to gaining Israel’s agreement on a peace treaty.

But here’s one of several stories I could tell you.

A few years ago, a very important Fatah and Palestinian Authority (PA) leader is speaking to a small group of special visitors. (Hint: He was just elected to the Fatah Central Committee). "We have a very unrealistic negotiating position," he says. "This Right of Return demand is a terrible mistake. The Israelis will never accept it and it will ensure there’s no agreement."

Suddenly, it was as if he woke up, realized where he was, shook his head, and added, “Forget I said that.”

Oh and nobody ever talks in Arabic about any empathy or understanding for Israel’s situation or makes any attempt to move their people toward toleration and getting beyond hatred. In America and Europe many think the Palestinian leadership is close to make peace. That's what it wants them to think, but in reality it isn't even in the same building.

The Ruling Establishment: The "All Mahmoud Abbas’s Men" Faction

Be careful here. I’m not saying these people obey Abbas or even look up to him as unquestioned ruler, as they actually did to Yasir Arafat. But they’ve hitched their wagon to his. In fact, this is basically Arafat’s old crew.

These include both older and younger guys: Saib Erikat, Azzam al-Ahmad, Hassan al-Sheikh, Tawfiq al-Tirawi, Othman Abu Gharbyeh, Muhammad al-Madani, Nabil Shaath, Muhammad Dahlan, and Jibril Rajoub.

What is their strategy? They don’t have anything very clever:

Try to avoid armed conflict with Israel and stay in the process, but without really bargaining with Israel. Just keep repeating their demands. Hope that the West forces Israel to make all the concessions. All you have to say is, "Thank you very much," pick up the keys, and drive away. (Well, actually they won't even say thanks.)

They are doing pretty well with the status quo and can enjoy being powerful and getting even richer. They have no intention of introducing democracy or putting a real emphasis on improving their people’s lives though if there’s money to be made they are delighted to see the West Bank become more prosperous. But they live off foreign donors.

Israel can work with them to keep things reasonably stable and non-violent. Progress toward peace? Forget it.

The Ruling Establishment's Hardline Lobby, Forget About the Peace Process, Onward to Victory!

This group hasn't had a new idea in 40 years. In practice it supports Abbas but is always lobbying for a more extreme policy and tougher rhetoric. Unlike the Abbas group, it isn't interested in saying nice things to fool the Westerners and make them happy. (It doesn't matter, though, because they don't pay attention any way.)

The person they really don’t like is Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. They’re humiliated at having a moderate technocrat who’s there just because the donors like him. They rejected the peace process and have no interest in any agreement.

These are all powerful guys, Fatah barons, like Muhammad Ghaneim, Salim al-Zanoun, Abbas Zaki, Sultan Abu al-Aynain, and Nasser Kidra. They’re also the kind of people who say to you: Where was Hamas when we were doing all the fighting?

In contrast to the Abbas group—and again I don’t want to imply they are anti-Abbas—they put less emphasis on keeping up a moderate image and more on ensuring that no concessions are ever made. They have their eyes on the prize—total victory over Israel and a Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean—and are going to make sure that the Abbas crowd doesn’t forget that’s what the struggle is about.

By making Ghaneim his successor, Abbas is cementing together these two factions. The only problem is he is dealing a death blow to any hope of peace and possibly setting the stage for a future violent confrontation. But that’s how Palestinian politics works.

The “Young Guard” Opposition: Defeat Israel, Make Peace, Defeat Israel Again

These are people who are younger, who never left the West Bank, weren’t in Arafat’s inner circle, but fought the First Intifada (1987-1990) and led the second one (2000-2005?). They never had much of a base in the Gaza Strip.

It is easy for outsiders to think of them as brave young rebels against the stodgy establishment. But they are not any more moderate than the Abbas crowd. In fact they might be better compared in many respects to the establishment’s hardline faction or you could put them somewhere in between.

I discuss this group in more detail here

Briefly, their program is:

Step one: Fight Israel on the West Bank, as was done in the Second Intifadah, until it accepts Palestinian terms.

Step two: Make a peace deal from a position of strength which does not foreclose continuing the battle once a Palestinian state has been established.

Step three: Establish a state and begin the next round to eliminate Israel altogether.

Conclusions

The main point is that none of these groups are going to make a comprehensive, full, final peace with Israel.

The Abbas group will continue the status quo and even work with Israel when necessary to do that. It will negotiate but never give anything, patiently awaiting success no matter what the cost in material terms. It has a cynical corrupt side to it, which is by no means completely negative since that’s better than having fanatical extremists like Hamas to deal with.

Of course, an incident could set off a new Palestinian-Israel war and, if so, the Abbas crowd will lead it. But that isn’t their goal at present.

The extremists in the establishment will act as watchdogs (are canine analogies still acceptable in such matters?) to ensure a hardline is maintained, that the next generation is educated to fight the struggle, and that there won’t be confidence-building measures toward Israel.

The young guard advocates a new rebellion. It might also be more open to cooperation with Hamas—which the establishment hates—as a needed ally in the battle. Increasingly, its rival will be the establishment’s younger generation.

The Fatah Congress was a victory for both factions in the establishment. It was an exercise in giving the appearance of change without there actually being any change.

And this is the framework which is supposedly going to bring a comprehensive peace in the next few years? Get real.

.