Sham Israeli peace negotiations were stillborn from inception. Writer Henry Siegman once called them "the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history."

Netanyahu once said they're "a waste of time." Previous Israeli officials called occupation and status quo conditions "permanent."

Republican presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich calls Palestinians an "invented" people. Decades ago, former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (a transplanted Ukrainian American) said:

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist....How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."

No wonder Edward Said once called the occupation an "atrocity" and the peace process "a disheartening bloody impasse.....to reduce the Palestinian actuality to nil, to efface Palestinians as a people with legitimate rights, to render them alien in their own land."

Israeli repression reached new extremes under Netanyahu. His government is Israel's worst ever. He exceeds the worst of Ariel Sharon and previous hard-line leaders.

On December 25, Haaretz writer Barak Ravid headlined, "Netanyahu: Israel will not negotiate with Palestinians should Hamas join government," saying:

Netanyahu vowed no talks if Fatah and Hamas unite for all Palestinians. In a speech at a conference for Israeli ambassadors, he said:

"If Hamas joins the Palestinian government, we will not hold negotiations with the Palestinian Authority....The peace process can only advance while maintaining security arrangements, which is becoming more difficult in light of the current situation in the region."

In April, Hamas and Fatah announced reconciliation and plans for transitional government ahead of presidential and parliamentary elections within a year to produce unity. Currently, they're set for May 2012.

Netanyahu reacted angrily saying, "choose between peace with Israel or peace with Hamas." Reconciliation shows "weakness," he added. "There cannot be peace" if both sides unite. "What happened....in Cairo is a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism."

Despite reservations on both sides, signing ceremony comments signaled hope. Abbas suggested turning a page, saying:

"Four black years have affected the interests of Palestinians. Now we meet to assert a unified will. Israel is using the Palestinian reconciliation as an excuse to evade (peace. It) must choose between peace and settlement."

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said:

"Hamas was ready to pay any price for internal Palestinian reconciliation. The only battle of the Palestinians is against Israel. Our aim is to establish a free and completely sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza strip, whose capital is Jerusalem, without any settlers and without giving up a single inch of land and without giving up on the right of return."

In mid-December, Abbas and Mashaal met again in Cairo after Hamas and Islamic Jihad announced Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) membership plans.

They'll form a committee ahead of next May's presidential, parliamentary and Palestinian National Council (PLC) elections. Once held, they'll join the PLO as sole legitimate Palestinian representative.

Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded supportively, saying "Moscow welcomes the serious talks between the Palestinian factions that aim to end Palestinian division."

According to the Turkish Anatolian news agency, so did Ankara. It also praised Egypt's sponsoring role.

On December 24, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero announced full support, saying:

"This is an important element for the unity of the future State of Palestine, and in that sense, this reconciliation is in Israel's future interests."

He added that reconciliation depends on Israel ending Gaza's siege, as well as both sides denouncing violence and respecting past agreements.

During Bethlehem's Christmas midnight mass, Latin Patriarch Fouad Twal called Palestinian self-determination the main thrust for achieving peace, adding:

"We ask for peace for the Palestinian people and for the Israeli people. We ask for peace, stability and security for the entire Middle East so that our children and their children may live their childhood in innocence, in a healthy environment where they may play together without fear or complex."

Israel and Washington, of course, remain significant obstacles very much unresolved.

Unity Discussions Scheduled to Continue

In late January, unity discussions will continue to select transitional government members until elections. In February, Palestine's parliament will resume operations.

At issue is Israel's response. Elections in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem depend on cooperation. In 2005, Israel manipulated the process for Abbas.

Leading opposition figure Marwan Barghouti was imprisoned on bogus murder charges. In addition, Mustafa Barghouti's candidacy was sabotaged for "demand(ing) total and complete reform, (ending all) form(s) of corruption, (and) mismanagement, and (working to) consolidate the rule of law."

As a result, Israel arrested him while campaigning, expelled him from East Jerusalem, excluded him from Nablus and Gaza, harassed and intimidated him repeatedly, and effectively rigged the process for Abbas.

In 2012, Israel may either prevent Palestinian elections with Hamas candidates or sabotage them to assure Israeli-friendly officials only gain power.

Another obstacle involves registering Palestinians worldwide to participate and letting them vote in PLO mission offices. Doing so depends on cooperation from countries where they live.

The PNC will have 350 delegates, 150 from the Territories and 200 diaspora ones. PNC Chairman Salim Zanoun has his hands full. He heads a committee charged with making this possible. Doing so's not easy. Nor is it for millions of occupied Palestinians or diaspora ones prevented from returning home.

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), Palestinians worldwide number 11.22 million as of year end 2011. About 4.23 million live in Palestine (including 1.6 million in Gaza), another 1.37 million in Israel, 4.99 million in Arab countries, and around 636,000 in other countries.

PCBS also said 44% of those in Palestine are refugees - 42% in the West Bank and 58% in Gaza. Numerous others live in Arab countries, notably Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

Ultra-nationalist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's extremism is also troubling. Repeatedly he said Israel won't return to 1967 borders. Settlement expansions will continue, and doing so's no obstacle to peace. In fact, they violate international law and obstruct any possibility of resolution.

Targeting Hamas at Israel's Behest

Baseless accusations are Israel's stock in trade. In January 1995, at its behest, the State Department duplicitously declared Hamas a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Its emergence began after 1967. In the late 1970s, Israel offered financial aid to counterbalance PLO influence. During the first Intifada (1987 - 1993), it gained prominence. Israel remained supportive.

At issue was manipulating both sides to prevent peace. Like America, Israel needs enemies to justify conflict and violence. Hamas was chosen strategically to advance Palestinian divisions.

In Arabic, Hamas means courage and bravery. Since established, it's resisted oppression and occupation. It prefers negotiation and international consensus, not violence.

However, its charter says it'll fight for its rights if Israel prevents peaceful reconciliation. It rejects Zionist intentions to destroy Palestinian society, its values and "wipe out Islam."

It calls itself "a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it....(Under Islam) it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security" as long as other religions "desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region."

It wants peace, equity and justice for all Palestinians. It prefers negotiating on the basis of "hudnah" or temporary truce. It's founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, said Hamas would end its liberating struggle "if the Zionists ended their occupation of Palestinian territories and stopped killing Palestinian women, children and innocent civilians."

It current leaders are willing to recognize Israel in return for self-determination in peace inside pre-1967 borders - 22% of historic Palestine. Moreover, numerous times it agreed to unilateral ceasefires in spite of repeated Israeli violations.

Nonetheless, it responses defensively after continued provocations. Washington and Israel call it "terrorism." Under international law, it's legitimate self-defense.

Besides being Palestine's legitimate government, Hamas provides vital social services, including medical clinics, education, free meals for children, help for orphans, financial and technical assistance for homeless families, aid to refugees, special youth and sports clubs, and more as their resources allow.

It also maintains an elite military wing for self-defense, policing and security, the Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades.

It wants equitable peace and reconciliation. So do Arabs and Jews. Israel and its Washington paymaster/partner choose violence. That Gordian Knot remains to be cut.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

Related posts:

• Questions About “Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation”
• US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace [Must read]
• Israel grant Abbas $1 billion only if Fatah kills Hamas

In advance of the formal burial of the Palestinian Authority's bid for state recognition at the UN, BBC Radio 4's flagship Today programme was on the right track. In his introduction to a quite revealing report, presenter John Humphrys said reporter Kevin Connolly had gone to Israel to find out "what hopes there are, if any, for the establishment of a Palestinian state."

Among those Connolly interviewed were Akiva Eldar, the Ha'aretz columnist who has been a constant critic of Israel's settlement policy. He said. "The settlers have won and Israel has lost... Israel must now live with the consequences."

As I have written from time to time in the past, the possible consequences include Israel tearing itself apart in a Jewish civil war; Israel going down and taking the whole region with it; and/or a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

If I take it as a given (I do) that Israel's leaders are not remotely interested in peace on terms that would satisfy even minimum Palestinian demands and needs for justice, and that as things are the major powers will continue to allow Zionism to go on calling the policy shots, the question arising is this: What can the Palestinians do themselves to advance their cause?

It's not for the gentile me to tell the Palestinians what to do but if I was a Palestinian the following is what I would want to happen.

The first and immediate priority - the dissolution of the PA, effectively making Israel fully and completely responsible and accountable for its occupation. Having to take complete responsibility would be quite costly for Israel financially and in terms of the additional call on its security resources. And in theory it ought to be less difficult (at present it's impossible) for the Palestinians, with the assistance of concerned and caring agencies and governments, to hold Israel accountable to international law for its occupation policies and actions.

Why should the PA be dissolved? Apart from the fact that it's corrupt and useless (has become just another Arab regime, some might say), the short answer is in two parts.

One is that under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah cronies, the PA's main role has been to keep the Palestinians, Hamas supporters on the West Bank in particular, under control for Israel. In that context the PA has been more or less a quisling authority collaborating with Israel, and by so doing it has undermined the liberation struggle.

The other is that under Abbas's leadership the PA has subverted Palestinian democracy. He was elected as chairman in January 2005 for a term of four years which expired in January 2009. There should then have been new elections. In the absence of them Abbas and his PA are without legitimacy and thus any real mandate to represent the occupied and oppressed Palestinians.

Abbas's response to the statement by the Security Council's admissions committee that it had failed to reach agreement on the PA's bid for full membership and state recognition was to say that he would "keep on trying." He also ruled out the possibility of dissolving the PA.

I think it's not unreasonable to speculate that his prime concern is to preserve the good life and privileges he and his Fatah leadership colleagues enjoy. Arafat was never a member of the discredited Arab Leadership Club. Abbas is a fully paid up member. On reflection I also think his decision to seek UN recognition of a Palestinian state was entirely self-serving. He knew the bid could not succeed but he calculated, correctly, that it would focus global attention on the Palestinian cause in a way that would improve his low standing in the eyes on his people. It did but only briefly.

Obviously the dissolution of the PA will only happen if enough Palestinians demand it. But in my view it's not only the occupied and oppressed Palestinians who need to do the demanding. In my view it's time for Palestinians everywhere to become engaged by peaceful and democratic means in the struggle to end the Zionization of their homeland and secure their rights. Put another way, if the Zionist colonial project is to be contained and defeated, the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians must now be supplemented by practical, effective and co-ordinated Palestinian diaspora action. For what purpose?

Not only to bring about the dissolution of the PA but to have it replaced as soon as possible by a re-structured and re-invigorated PNC (Palestine National Council). Once upon a time this now side-lined, parliament-in-exile was the supreme decision-making body on the Palestinian side. Even Arafat was accountable to it. (It did, in fact, take him six long years to persuade a majority of PNC delegates representing Palestinians nearly everywhere to endorse his policy of politics and compromise with Israel. That happened towards the end of 1979. The PNC vote in favour of Arafat's policy - the two-state solution - was 296 for it and only four against. From then on the Palestinian door was open to peace on terms which any rational government in Israel would have accepted with relief).

For the PNC to be brought back to life re-structured and re-invigorated, there would have to be elections to it in communities/constituencies throughout the Palestinian diaspora. The following by country and numbers of Palestinians is the most recent available estimate of its composition that I am aware of.

The occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip - 4,200,000

Jordan - 2,900,000

Israel - 1,600,000

Syria - 800,000

Chile - 500,000

Lebanon - 490,000

Saudi Arabia - 280,245

Egypt - 270,245

United States - 270,000

Honduras - 250,000

Venezuela - 245,120

United Arab Emirates - 170,000

Germany -159,000

Mexico - 158,000

Qatar - 100,000

Kuwait - 70,000

El Salvador - 70,000

Brazil - 59,000

Iraq - 57,000

Yemen - 55,000

Canada - 50,975

Australia - 45,000

Libya - 44,000

Denmark - 32,152

United Kingdom - 30,000

Sweden - 25,500

Peru - 20,000

Columbia - 20,000

Spain - 12,000

Pakistan -10,500

Netherlands - 9,000

Greece - 7,500

Norway - 7,000

France - 5,000

Guatemala - 3,500

Austria - 3,000

Switzerland - 2,000

Turkey - 1,000

India - 300

That global spread of the original (1947/48) and subsequent (1967) Palestinian refugees and their descendants is an awesome tribute to the success of Zionist ethnic cleansing.

The prime task of a re-structured and re-invigorated PNC would be to debate and determine Palestinian policy and then represent it by speaking to power with one credible voice. That, I believe, would significantly improve the prospects for getting a real peace process going. By definition a real peace process is one that would require the major powers led by the U.S. to confront the Zionist monster.

The organizational effort required to bring the PNC back to life, re-structured and re-invigorated, is massive, but what might have taken years in the past could be done in months by making best and most effective use of the internet.

If diaspora Palestinians do not now make the effort and put their act together, I think it's possible, even probable, that future Palestinian historians will conclude that they betrayed their occupied and oppressed brothers and sisters as much as the regimes of an impotent, corrupt and repressive Arab Order did.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Related posts:

• Think Again: Palestine
• Let Palestine be Palestine: Letter to President Obama
• The returning issue of Palestine’s refugees

The West's lofty expectations for Salam Fayyad went far beyond what he was ever able to deliver.

By Nathan J. Brown* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Salam Fayyad, Palestinian Prime Minister. STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

The prime minister's departure from the Palestinian political scene appears likely but not inevitable. With Fatah and Hamas striving to form a unity government, Fayyad may very well be sacrificed on the altar of Palestinian unity.

Neither the sunny nor the cynical view of Fayyad is fair. His optimistic smile obscured an impossible situation: Fayyad's main achievement has not been to build the structures of a Palestinian state, but to stave off the collapse of those structures that did exist. An equally important achievement was his ability to persuade Western observers that he was doing much more. In the process, however, he raised expectations far beyond his ability to deliver.

What Fayyad Did Not Do: In enumerating Fayyad's accomplishments, it is necessary -- if churlish -- to begin by explaining what Fayyad did not accomplish.

First, he did not build any institutions. The state-like political structures now in the West Bank and Gaza were either built during the heyday of the Oslo Process in the 1990s or in the more distant days of Jordanian and British rule.

Second, he did not bring Palestinians to the brink of statehood. The Palestinian Authority, for all its problems, was actually far more ready for statehood on the eve of the Second Intifada in 1999 than it is on the possible eve of the third in 2011. A dozen years ago, Palestine had full security control of its cities, a set of institutions that united the West Bank and Gaza, a flourishing civil society, and a set of legitimate structures for writing authoritative laws and implementing them. Those accomplishments were in retreat long before Fayyad took office, and he was hardly able to restore them.

Third, Fayyad did not strengthen the rule of law. He could not have done so, since the only legitimate law-making body the Palestinians have, the Legislative Council, has not met since he came to power.

Fourth, Fayyad did not prove to Palestinians that they should rely on themselves. Just the opposite. He showed Palestinians that if they relied on him, foreigners would show them the money. At the heady days at the beginning of Oslo, the United States pledged half a billion dollars for the entire five-year process during which the parties were supposed to negotiate a permanent agreement. They have given Fayyad more than that almost every year that he has been in office. The Europeans have opened the purse strings for him too. It is utterly baffling that a figure so completely dependent on Western diplomatic and financial support would be seen by outsiders as an icon of Palestinian self-help.

Finally, he did not bring economic development to the West Bank. What he made possible was a real but unsustainable recovery based on aid and relaxation of travel restrictions. Year-to-year economic indicators in both the West Bank and Gaza are dependent on foreign assistance, and even more on the political and security situation. Fayyad can thus take some credit for the upturn, but Hamas can make a similar claim for the mild improvements in Gaza since Israel relaxed some of the closure last year. Neither has laid the groundwork for real development or attraction of foreign investment. Nor could they in the stultifying and uncertain political environment.

None of these failings was personal. Fayyad could not have accomplished any of these goals even had he wanted to. He led half of a dysfunctional Palestinian Authority, governed scattered bits of territory in the West Bank, and was forced to rattle the cup constantly in order to pay the bills.

What Fayyad Did Do: However, if Fayyad could not walk on water, he did an almost miraculous job of not drowning. This is not to damn Fayyad with faint praise; the prime minister assumed control of a Palestinian Authority that was unable to pay all of its salaries, deeply mistrusted by Israel, and treated as irrelevant by many Palestinians.

His first and most impressive accomplishment was to gain the trust of Western governments. The unrealistic hopes placed in his premiership were partly a testimony to the esteem in which he was held in some international circles. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken of her pride in his efforts and informed Palestinian youth that Fayyad has given them hope. No diplomatic statement from Western governments is complete without a kind word for his accomplishments. Fayyad was even able to earn a grudging Israeli trust through renewed security cooperation and efforts to rebuild the Palestinian security services. These accomplishments allowed him to pay government salaries, redeploy police, and attract enormous amounts of aid.

And Fayyad was able to win some modest victories in Palestinian governance. The security services became less partisan, public finances became more transparent (even without any domestic oversight), corruption likely decreased, pockets of the civil service were rebuilt on a more professional basis, and basic order in Palestinian cities was improved. When it comes to progress in these areas -- sharply limited but still significant -- Fayyad can even claim to have gone beyond maintenance to improving the Palestinian situation beyond where it stood in 1999.

The Poverty of Politics: All along, however, this was a difficult juggling act. Enthusiastic international support would continue only so long as it was possible to pretend that Fayyad was making dramatic gains; domestic acceptance of Fayyad was dependent on his continuing to pay salaries and provide for basic order. Pulling aside the curtain and revealing that Palestinians were not building a state thus risked undermining Western support for him, which would in turn remove the raison d'être of his premiership in Palestinian eyes.

Thus Fayyadism was a political house of cards. There was no domestic foundation for Fayyad's efforts; for Palestinians, he was simply an unsolicited gift from the United States and Europe -- a welcome one for some, but not for others. And to his international backers, Fayyad was completely frank about his limitations: His efforts, he said, would only pay off in the context of a meaningful diplomatic process that reinforced the drive toward statehood. This was an ingredient that has been missing for many years, and Fayyad was powerless to procure it.

Earlier this year, there were signs that Fayyad himself had begun to look for ways to escape Fayyadism. It was Fayyad, rather than Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who reached out to Hamas in February. The reconciliation file was quickly snatched out of his hands, however, and his hold on the premiership is now on the bargaining table.

What is remarkable, however, is how Fayyadism soldiered on in some Western eyes even after Fayyad himself had begun to distance himself from it. American pundits continued to trumpet his successes without missing a beat right up until the April reconciliation agreement. In March, Thomas Friedman was still writing about Fayyad's gaining momentum and even upped the ante by claiming that his program posed the "biggest threat to Iran's strategy." Meanwhile top policymakers continued to be mesmerized by Fayyad's poll numbers, which were less bad than those of most other leaders, and simply ignored the hollowness at the core of their own policies. Nor did the polls translate into any kind of political party or movement that could have run in, much less won, an election -- if one were ever held.

The Perils of Positive Thinking: For years, Fayyad's soft talk and cheery dedication enabled policymakers throughout the world to ignore the brewing crisis. And this may be where Fayyad, despite his impressive management skills, did Palestinians a disservice.

In 2009, the incoming Obama administration was quickly lured into a set of approaches (many inherited from the Bush years) that proved their complete bankruptcy this year -- ignoring Gaza and allowing its population to be squeezed hard, pretending that there was a meaningful Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process at hand, assuming that Hamas could be dealt with after the peace process and Fayyad had worked their magic, and making the paradoxical and erroneous assumption that the best way to build Palestinian institutions was to rely on a specific, virtuous individual.

Fayyad cannot be held primarily responsible for this collective self-delusion; at most, he facilitated it. And in the process he provided all actors with a breathing space that is now disappearing. Ultimately, the ones who convinced themselves he was capable of completely transforming Palestine are most responsible for squandering the brief respite his premiership offered.

* Nathan J. Brown is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and nonresident senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Source: Foreign Policy

Related posts:

• Time for New Palestinian Political Strategy
• Somebody please hand Abbas the revolver on the silver tray
• Maybe Gaza should paddle its own canoe

The rival Palestinian political organizations, Fatah and Hamas, have reached an agreement to end a nearly five-year internal schism, form an interim government, and hold a general election within a year. The two sides have been locked in a bitter conflict since Fatah and the Bush administration tried to overthrow Gaza's Hamas-led government in 2006 after Hamas won Palestinian national elections. Israel and the United States say they'll reject any peace talks with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. Democracy Now! speak with Saree Makdisi, professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA and the author of several books, including Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation.

Saree did a great job of putting the deal in the context of the current Israeli occupation and what it means for peace talks going forward.

Video link: http://youtu.be/7HwsaTiovCk

Related posts:

• Israel grant Abbas $1 billion only if Fatah kills Hamas
• Palestinian Unity Government: Yes!
• Deal or No Deal in Palestine

By Safa Joudeh* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Hundreds gather in Ramallah's city center to call for national unity, 15 March 2011. (Oren Ziz/ActiveStills)

The goal: a mass mobilization of Palestinians to pressure the Hamas-run government in Gaza, and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, to end the four-year-long division. But rather than topple the governments, as was the goal with the uprisings in neighboring countries, demonstrators hope to be able to bring them together. Increasingly belligerent Israeli measures, mainly the continued siege on Gaza and settlement expansion in the West Bank, have fueled Palestinians' discontent with their leaderships. People fear that the divide will further weaken the Palestinian front, leaving it even more vulnerable in the face of Israel's aggressive policies.

The day arrived. In the West Bank city of Ramallah crowds gathered in al-Manara Square, chanting against the division. Elsewhere in the West Bank, in Nabus, Hebron and Bethlehem, hundreds took to the streets in peaceful pro-unity marches; in East Jerusalem the Israeli military was on high alert as demonstrators gathered outside the Old City's Damascus Gate, raising Palestinian flags and calling for unity.

Gaza too was fully on board. Had you stopped any person on the street a few days before and asked them about the most likely 15 March scenario, their answer would have been as follows:

People will begin to gather in small groups in the morning, they will all be carrying Palestinian flags and repeating slogans calling for unity between the rival factions Fatah and Hamas. There will be banners and flyers, kuffiyehs (the traditional checkered scarf) and headbands emblazoned with the colors of the Palestinian flag; there will be megaphones and patriotic songs, but there will be no sign of sectarianism or factional representation.

Things will be calm until the groups of demonstrators reach the Square of the Unknown Soldier in the heart of Gaza City. If a substantial amount of protesters (more than a hundred) decide to remain for more than an hour or so, Hamas supporters, waiting on the sidelines, will begin to infiltrate the crowd and grow in number, you will begin to see green flags and green headbands and megaphones blaring Qassam-glorifying songs will drown out the national anthem and other non-Hamas tunes. Police presence will intensify and tensions will rise when the demonstrators (inevitably) clash with Hamas affiliates and members of the Hamas police force, who they feel are hijacking their demonstration. The "independent" demonstrators will attempt to move to a new location (they were indeed led by the organizers to al-Katiba square by al-Azhar University, a Fatah stronghold), and will be followed and closely monitored by the police and eventually force will be employed to disperse them.

And so the events unfolded, precisely as the hypothetical speculator would have predicted. Follow-up demonstrations occurred in the following days, smaller in size and damper in enthusiasm, and so 15 March passed, leaving behind no more than a faint twitch amid the racking convulsions of suppression and affliction.

Does it come as a surprise? Clearly Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank were prepared for a security crackdown or there would have been no need to build up so much momentum for an event supporting an end to intra-Palestinian division. And clearly escalation was sought: it is the only way both leaderships will be made to feel the pressure to resolve their differences.

Naturally, both Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank claimed unwavering support of the pro-unity demonstrations and heartfelt commitment to unifying the Palestinian front and reestablishing democracy. Assuming this were the case, it is curious that any initiatives towards either goal, by either government, have only been taken on the heels of unsettling events, and died down almost as fast as they were instigated.

For instance, senior Fatah official Nabil Shaath's three-day visit to Gaza in February of last year was welcomed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza, and Shaath was the first-high ranking Palestinian Authority official to visit from Ramallah since the division began in June 2007. The visit made for a good photo-op and was intertwined with memorable speeches, phony optimism and uncomfortable (phony) smiles. It was a feeble attempt by both leaderships to pacify feelings of unrest that had risen among Palestinians (especially after the PA stonewalled the Goldstone report vote at the UN, and the subsequent refusal of Hamas to sign a reconciliation agreement). Any attempts on the public's part to determine any further effects and repercussions of this visit failed.

During the 13 months that followed, both the PA and Gaza governments have done their best to crack down on members of the rival party in their respective territories. The Hamas government claims that PA security forces arrested 3,000 Hamas loyalists in the West Bank in 2010, while Hamas was accused by Fatah of arresting 3,120 of its supporters in Gaza that same year.

Illegal detention and in many cases, torture and sometimes death, followed. Condemnations were batted back and forth like a tennis ball. Hamas accuses Fatah of complicity with Israel in the Dubai assassination of its operative Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, Fatah accuses Hamas of the attempted assassination of one of its officials in Nablus, and amid all this, "reconciliation efforts" continued. Discussions were held between a Fatah delegation headed by Azzam al-Ahmed and a Hamas delegation headed by Mousa Abu Marzouk on the Egyptian reconciliation paper in Damascus in September 2010. Of course, both sides left feeling "positive." They left as close to reconciliation as they'd ever been.

The Fatah-led PA has a long, open and well-documented record of working with Israel under the internationally-endorsed framework of "security cooperation," also a major cause of the division. Hamas is not willing to accept such cooperation which it sees as targeted against all forms of resistance, and Fatah leaders are not willing or able to give it up.

In January 2011, Al Jazeera released the Palestine Papers revealing the extent of PA concessions of Palestinian rights, and walls didn't really come crashing down in the immediate sense (except for the resignation of PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, who has been in place since the Oslo accords were signed), as the scandal was somewhat overshadowed by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. But both the leaked papers and the uprisings managed to convince Mahmoud Abbas that running for another term was a bad idea, and of course, that a reconciliation overture was due, hence Abbas' announcement that he would visit Gaza, to reach an agreement no less.

Amid these proceedings Gaza, appeared like a ticking time bomb, but just when it reached an incendiary point, it would crackle and spit, and eventually fizzle out.

This is largely due to the dissatisfaction among people in Gaza with the growing isolation and difficult conditions under Hamas, and at the same time their unwillingness to direct their fight towards an iron-handed, but otherwise commendable government.

Furthermore, although focal, Hamas' security apparatus and tight governance do not represent the full extent of Hamas' hold on the Gaza Strip. The movement is entrenched in the very fabric of Gaza's socio-economic and civilian infrastructure. Hamas as a government and as a political movement has built housing projects, vocational education centers, clinics, acquired prime real estate, runs charities and nongovernmental organizations, employs tens if not hundreds of thousands of workers, both in government offices and private enterprises, owns banks, factories, insurance companies and enjoys a wide base of supporters and sympathizers.

If recent lessons from the Arab world had not taught us otherwise, one would almost believe in the near impossibility of marginalizing Gaza's ruling party. But to borrow a phrase from other deposed rulers, Gaza is not Egypt or Tunisia.

Fragmenting Palestinian efforts and redirecting the course of the struggle away from a focus on the occupation and siege, and toward internal parties will provide Israel with the best cover for continued settlement expansion, land annexation, demolition, expulsion, land razing and killing among a multitude of other violations.

At the risk of sounding like a proponent of factionalism, I cannot but mention that many of those demonstrating in Gaza on 15 March came from Fatah backgrounds or were affiliated with the disaffected Fatah movement. This is by no means sanctioning their suppression and harassment by security forces and the intelligence apparatus, but it merely goes to show how deeply-rooted partisanship is within the masses, differing political agendas and approaches towards the conflict polarizing the population and widening the rift to unprecedented degrees. And I will venture to say that those demonstrators were out there protesting against Hamas as much as they were protesting against division. Again, it is their indisputable right to do so but the deep animosity between both factions illustrates why Hamas movement security officials felt threatened, even by a peaceful assembly.

Divided, Palestinians will surely fall and fueling the internal fire will only serve to deepen the divide. If Palestinians truly desire unity their focus should be turned within. The public needs to free itself of blind and radical factionalism as much, if not more than the leaderships, and only then will demonstrations such as 15 March be effective.

Despite differing ideologies, all Palestinian factions, whether Islamic, socialist or secular, were born from the collective struggle to liberate an occupied land. Returning to the roots of the struggle will bring down the barriers formed by self-interest and a blind desire for power, of which rival parties in Gaza and Ramallah are both guilty.

* Safa Joudeh is a freelance broadcast journalist and writer from the Gaza Strip, reporting from Gaza and Egypt. Follow her on Twitter (@SafaJoudeh).

Related posts:

• Gaza, One Year On: the Palestinian Struggle Continues
• The Gaza Freedom March
• Gaza Freedom March is Determined to Break the Siege

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

So Hamas is not coming out to play at the elections the Palestinian Authority (PA) wants to hold before September.

And who can blame it? Last time, I hear, President Mahmoud Abbas and his gruesome crew wouldn't allow Hamas to contest the elections under its own party name – and they still lost, went into a sulk, turned quisling and deeply shamed the Palestinian people.

Ever since, the Fatah-dominated PA has worked hand-in-glove with Israel and deployed its Western-funded thugs to prevent Hamas from "developing" the West Bank electorally.

Hamas says it is not playing ball because elections will reinforce Palestine's internal divisions. In any case, Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have no legitimate authority to organize and supervise such elections and Hamas will not give them recognition or cover to do so.

As usual, Abbas has things back to front. Resistance factions are surely right in insisting on unity first. The continuing political fragmentation and the physical separation of the two territories have led to serious violations of the conditions that must prevail for genuinely free and fair elections to take place.

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) has just issued a position statement, which includes the following:

Any presidential, legislative or local elections require certain conditions necessary for the organization of fair and transparent elections that reflect the will of voters. These conditions most notably include the upholding of public freedoms, including the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to peaceful assembly and the freedom of association; the release of all political prisoners; the lifting of prohibitions imposed on political activities (Hamas activities in the West Bank and Fatah activities in the Gaza Strip); as well as permission for all print, audio and visual media institutions to operate freely.

PCHR points to the serious and unprecedented deterioration of public freedoms and the ongoing violations of Palestinians' human rights in PNA [Palestinian National Authority – also known as Palestinian Authority, or PA] territories. According to PCHR monitoring and investigations, the vast majority of intra-Palestinian human rights violations were motivated by the political fragmentation.

This shows just how toxic the Abbas regime's rule has been to Palestinian prospects. Obviousl,y there's a lot of behind-scenes work to do before Palestinians can go to the polls.

Mind the gap!

Let's face it: the clowns who drew up – and agreed – the boundaries for Partition in 1947 must have been bribed, or stoned out of their minds, to propose an Arab state with two non-contiguous territories and one of them landlocked.

Palestinians are nearly always denied permission to travel between them. But in October 1999 Israel and the PA signed an agreement for a road across the 28-mile gap between the Gaza Strip and the landlocked West Bank. The Israelis said it would open "in a week or two", but they'd control permits for the corridor and monitor the traffic.

To take advantage of this "safe passage" running from the Erez Crossing to Tarkumiyeh, near Hebron, Palestinians would have to apply for permits in advance, a process that could take up to five days. Travel would be restricted to daytime, the last vehicle leaving the corridor by 5pm.

Ehud Barak, then Israel's prime minister, told the Knesset that the land route was only temporary and he hoped to build a flyover linking the Palestinian zones.

Of course, like everything the Israelis control, the corridor wasn't going to work without maximum humiliation and aggravation for Palestinians, but the diplomatic dummies in the West hailed it as evidence of a new spirit of co-operation in the Middle East peace process.

In 2007 the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs said: "There is... no reason to believe that a Palestinian State, lacking a territorial link between the West Bank and Gaza, will not be viable, where 'viable' is understood as capable of independent existence." It cited several other examples where states comprise non-contiguous territories, such as East and West Timor, and Argentina. Of course, these all have direct links by sea. Gaza and the West Bank haven't.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), in January 2006, came up with a proposal for an air corridor based on the 1944 Chicago Convention. As a matter of principle, according to the convention, states are obliged to allow access to their airspace for the purpose of transit to the aircraft of other contracting states and, subject to certain provisions (reasons of public safety, national security or military necessity), are prevented from discriminating against such aircraft on the grounds of their nationality. The ability of a state to prevent the civil aircraft of other states from using the designated airways within its sovereign airspace is strictly limited. In practice, however, it may be difficult to enforce the basic right of flight over another state's airspace.

The convention establishes the responsibilities and obligations of contracting states to provide for the free movement of international air transport services. "In terms of the right of passage for foreign aircraft through Israeli airspace," says the CAA, "the transit agreement as read with the convention itself, is of critical importance. Israel is a signatory to both the convention and the transit agreement and therefore bound by the provisions of those documents."

The CAA also points to the provisions of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas 1958 and in particular Article 3 (now largely superseded by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, Article 125), which recognizes the right of states with no sea-coast to have access to the sea.

To that end the signatory states situated between the sea and states having no sea-coast shall, by common agreement with the latter and in conformity with existing international conventions, accord to that state, on the basis of reciprocity, free transit through their territory.

To the extent that a part of the future state of Palestine, namely the West Bank, will have no sea-coast, then the provisions of the conventions might be considered applicable to the future relationship between Palestine and Israel, even though the latter is not yet a signatory...

The previous year, in June 2005, Israel's then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, had authorized the PA to prepare Gaza airport for reopening and announced that Israel would transfer control of Bethlehem and Qalqilyah.

This was followed by a declaration by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States was "committed to connectivity between Gaza and the West Bank" and to the "freedom of movement for the Palestinian people".

The CAA's proposal included a number of options, all of which assumed that Palestine will eventually sign the Chicago Convention and be entitled to all rights and privileges that flow from it, including the basic rights of access to the airspace of the other contracting states.

It suggested that, when negotiating with Israel, the Palestinians seek an agreement for a contiguous vertical dimension to the territorial corridor to enable access by very light aircraft and/or helicopters for monitoring the traffic using it and for the purposes of search and rescue, medical or casualty evacuation and emergency control and recovery. This vertical dimension could be limited to 1,000 feet in height and a maximum of one to two nautical miles in width, sufficient for flights under Visual Flight Rules only.

The Palestinians should also seek agreement for an air corridor between Gaza International Airport and the West Bank (possibly via the Reporting Point of Beer-Sheba). This could be restricted to between 5,000 and 10,000 feet in height and up to 10 miles in width within Israeli airspace.

What if...

Pigs may fly before any of this happens. And nobody is going to put themselves in a position (again) where Israel can suddenly throw a security wobbly and switch off a whole nation's right to movement and trade, and bring about economic ruination.

And can Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank ever become lovingly reunited? Probably not without a Cairo-style revolution and UN-guaranteed land and air corridors.

So what if Hamas decided that a two-state Holy Land is simply not workable, and that their best bet is to develop the Gaza Strip as an independent coastal enclave as soon as some degree of border normalization is established? All they need do is sit back, smile more, do whatever is needed to boost their appeal, wait for the blockade to be lifted and go it alone, trading with the rest of the world via land (through liberated Egypt), sea and air.

If left to their own devices they would surely prosper.

But what happens to the landlocked West Bank? Maybe the single state solution comes a step closer.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Wikileaks shocker: Did Abbas know in advance about the devastating blitz on his countrymen in Gaza?
• Committee of Independent Experts on Gaza War
• Gaza Over & Over..

By Stephen Lendman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Cartoon by Adam Zyglis, Buffalo, NY, The Buffalo News

Marching in Ramallah with Egyptian flags, they publicly supported them "(f)or the first time since the beginning of their uprising...." Another Ramallah demonstration followed as well as a Bethlehem one.

Toameh's February 2 article was in stark contrast headlined, "PA launches pro-Mubarak demonstration in Ramallah," denouncing Mohamed ElBaradei as a "CIA agent."

On February 4, the Popular Committees Against the Israeli Occupation issued a press release saying:

"The Egyptian Arab nation....We salute this great Arab nation, our brothers. This is the salute of freedom from the people of Palestine who have been fighting for decades for freedom and independence, and to retain the honor of Arabs."

"The Palestinians are watching what is happening across the Arab world in general and Egypt in particular with great pride....We hope that the rebelling Arab people make it their priority to demand from any government or leadership to come to sever their ties with the Israeli occupation and abandon the Egyptian - Israeli peace treaty....We call on all free nations in the world, especially Europe and the US, to get out in massive demonstrations on 2/11/11 to confirm the right of peoples to live in freedom and dignity - a day of anger" for justice, the "beginning of the Global Intifada."

On February 3, Haaretz writer Amira Hass headlined, "Why isn't the PA supporting the Egypt uprising? saying:

Instead, it "banned demonstrations in solidarity with the rebelling peoples. Palestinian television has virtually ignored the events in Egypt." Demonstrators at Cairo's Ramallah consulate were monitored by plainclothes security forces.

"What is the (PA) afraid of....?" It has close ties with Mubarak like Israel, and "when a regime is insufficiently democratic, it fears that popular demonstrations might spin out of control."

On February 7, Hass headlined, "Palestinian security suppressing West Bank fervor over Egypt protests," saying:

PA security forces suppressed a Ramallah demonstration. Adnan Dmeiri, PA security forces spokesman, said "demonstrations could lead to chaos. The priority for Palestinians was to empower popular resistance against the occupation and to work for independence."

In fact, Abbas/Fayyad security forces work cooperatively with Israel against it, enforcing occupation harshness. They've been well trained and financed to do it. A previous article explained.

America's Lt. General Keith Dayton, US security coordinator (USSC) for Israel and the PA, has been heavily involved in creating, building and training a 25,000-strong force. In recent years, Washington spent around $400 million institutionalizing hard-line control, supplementing Israel's efforts.

Dayton's in charge of building and renovating garrisons, training colleges, Interior Ministry facilities, and security headquarters. President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad head an illegitimate regime as Israeli/Washington enforcers, solidifying occupation and Israel's settlement project, including entirely Judaizing Jerusalem.

Governing as political opportunist traitors, their Mubarak moment awaits them, perhaps sooner than they imagine for exploiting and betraying their own people, including attacking peaceful protesters.

Commenting on Ramallah events, an anonymous demonstrator said:

"We had not yet done a thing. A number of policemen in uniforms began arguing with one of the demonstrators, apparently on purpose, so as to create a pretext for arresting him. They took his identity card and then began dragging him in the direction of the police station."

Human Right Watch (HRW) said PA policemen were joined by detectives, preventive security force personnel and others from general intelligence, "all of them plainclothesmen." They beat, kicked and dragged demonstrators away violently. Numerous arrests were made. Photograph-taking was prohibited. Cell phones and cameras were confiscated, and PA forces videotaped events, wanting activists identified for later arrests and detentions.

Their numbers, however, grew to about 2,000, marching and chanting the slogan heard in Tunisia and Egypt:

"The people want the fall of the regime....The people want the fall of Abbas," and an end to the internal Palestinian "inqisam (rift)!....Raise your voice, Arab masses! Dignity or death, we need a true unity!" Two (unnamed) "well-known" Fatah members joined them in solidarity.

On February 5, hundreds of Bil'in residents, joined by international and Israeli supporters, protested in solidarity with Egyptians and Tunisians. Calling for national unity, Israeli troops attacked them with tear gas and concussion grenades.

Gathering in Bil'in center for their weekly Friday demonstration, they marched toward Israel's Separation Wall, what they call the Annexation Wall on village land. Their public statement said:

"We salute the Egyptian and Tunisian people" in solidarity with their struggle for freedom;
"We call for national unity and the preservation of civil peace (to) pass this historic stage successfully;"
"We hope that rebelling Arab people make it their priority to demand from any government or leadership to come to sever their ties with the Israeli occupation and abandon the Egyptian - Israeli peace treaty" that ignored Palestinian people, leaving them occupied and repressed under militarized harshness.
"We call on all free nations in the world" to rally in solidarity with Arab people struggling to be free.

From his perspective, Omar Barghouti, a founder and director of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, expressed no surprise how PA forces reacted, saying:

"Unelected, authoritarian regimes tend to stand together. They are very scared of popular mobilization especially in light of the Palestine Papers. (They) agree on repression and have no interest in empowerment of people or mobilization."

On February 10, Haaretz writer Gideon Levy headlined, "The Middle East does not need stability," saying:

When children throw stones at tanks entering neighborhoods it's called "Disturbing the peace." When they're detained for resisting occupation, it's called "Restoring order."

"The occupier oppresses, the occupied people overcome their instincts and their struggle, and good order is maintained - for now. Stability."

Egyptians dared "disturb the peace," undermining Middle East stability. "Indeed, that stability should be undermined" throughout the region, including in Occupied Palestine. How else can oppressed people be free. Stability suffocates them. Resistance is liberating if sustained long enough.

Egyptians and Tunisians made a good start, but their struggle has just begun. When will Palestinians begin theirs? When tanks invade neighborhoods, "stones must be thrown at (them); the infuriating stability of the Middle East must be wiped out," replaced by liberating freedom, perhaps contagious enough to spread regionally, but never easily, quickly or without great risks and costs.

Egyptian Events Resonating Regionally

Egypt's outcome has regional implications, including in Occupied Palestine, especially given Mubarak's cooperative role with Israel and Washington. As a result, PA officials noticeably distanced themselves from uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and Algeria, fearing soon one may target them. They've also aggressively cracked down to prevent it through violence, intimidation and arrests.

So far, it's worked, but for how long. Egyptians endured three decades under Mubarak. In 1948, Palestinians lost their homeland, and for nearly 44 years suffered brutally under militarized occupation, exacerbated by collaborating PA enforcers.

Perhaps Egyptian courage will inspire them to summon theirs for liberating freedom under leaders they choose.

A Final Comment

On February, BBC's Jon Donnison headlined, "Gaza youth vent anger on Facebook," saying:

"Khaled (a pseudonym) had become something of an online sensation in Gaza, but is now effectively living in hiding" for his safety after cooperatively creating the Gaza Youth Manifesto for Change, "a 450-word tirade against the frustrations" of occupied life under siege. Posted in December, it has over 19,000 followers under the name Gaza Youth Breaks Out.

Everyone is pilloried, including Hamas, Fatah, Israel, Washington, and the UN, saying:

"We, the youth of Gaza, are so fed up (with) occupation, the violations of human rights and the indifference of the international community!"

"ENOUGH! Enough pain, enough tears, enough suffering, enough control, limitations, unjust justifications, terror, torture, excuses, bombings, sleepless nights, dead civilians, black memories, bleak future(s), heart-aching present, disturbed politics, fanatic politicians."

"WE SAY STOP! This is not the future we want! We want to be free. We want to be able to live a normal life. We want peace. Is that too much to ask?"

Is Manifesto passion a prelude to mass street protests throughout Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, matching breathtaking Egyptian courage. It's how freedom at times is won, but never easily, quickly or longstanding without sustained vigilance to retain long-fought, hard-won gains, easily lost otherwise.

Numerous previous times, longtime insider Bob Chapman made impressive calls, often before others noticed. On air February 10 on the Progressive Radio News Hour, he said Washington overplayed its hand in Egypt. Now it has a tiger by the tail perhaps too hard to control and will end up losing its regional grip when events finally play out.

Others agree, including Immanuel Wallerstein in his February 3 article headlined, "The Second Arab Revolt: Winners and Losers," saying:

Months will pass before they're known. At this point, events are fluid, outcomes uncertain. Yet he calls Washington the "great loser," Iran the biggest winner, then Turkey for supporting the Arab revolt and confronting Israel.

Indeed, it's too soon to know, but it may be the right side of history. If so, it'll defy long odds favoring power over populist uprisings, an exception perhaps proving the rule if gains hold and aren't lost because of lack of eternal vigilance.

Note: Fast-breaking events in Egypt will be discussed in a forthcoming article. Things aren't always as they seem. Below the surface maneuvers, manipulation and machinations are far more important than what's visible on the surface. Major media reports, of course, won't explain. Real journalism and analysis are essential. Focus on them and Al Jazeera's online stream for up-to-date news.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

Related posts:

• Video: Israeli forces invade Balata refugee camp
• Surround me with songs of deliverance: crossing the borders of solidarity
• We’re All Egyptians Now!

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Cartoon by Khalil Bendib

To illustrate his point Shirazi selected this quote:

It is true that How not to do it was the great study and object of all public departments and professional politicians all round the Circumlocution Office." (Charles Dickens, Little Dorritt, Chapter10)

Dickens was able to anticipate, 150 years ahead of his time, the gobbledygook uttered by Western leaders like Clinton, Obama, Blair, Brown and now Cameron solemnly pledging peace in the Middle East while pursuing behind-scenes policies to achieve the exact opposite, in order to perpetuate the conflict for Israel's benefit.

In "The Circumlocution Office" Dickens wrote:

It is true that every new premier and every new government, coming in because they had upheld a certain thing as necessary to be done, were no sooner come in than they applied their utmost faculties to discovering How not to do it. It is true that from the moment when a general election was over, every returned man who had been raving on hustings because it hadn't been done, and who had been asking the friends of the honourable gentleman in the opposite interest on pain of impeachment to tell him why it hadn't been done, and who had been asserting that it must be done, and who had been pledging himself that it should be done, began to devise, How it was not to be done.

Keeping Gaza on the brink of economic collapse
Circumlocution is a posh word for talking bollox. The British Foreign Office has been specially trained in circumlocution.

"We are encouraged by the recent decision by the Israeli government to facilitate exports out of Gaza," said Foreign Office minister and Israel admirer Alistair Burt last month, adding:

It is certainly important that this leads to a positive change on the ground. We look forward to working with Israel to achieve this through the resumption of access for Gaza exports to all their traditional markets, and helping achieve Israel's stated target of reaching pre-summer 2007 export levels by the middle of next year. We will continue to work closely with EU partners to press for further progress in Gaza.

Note that it's Israel's totally inadequate target for Gaza's exports that matters to the minister, rather than the Gazans'. And everyone knows by now that Israel's policy – and Britain's, thanks to the "unbreakable bond" – is to keep Gaza on the brink of economic collapse.

Back in June, Burt was writing:

It has long been the view of the government that restrictions on Gaza should be lifted; a view confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 1860, which called for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and called on states to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation persisting there. It is essential that there be unfettered access not only to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, but to enable the reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place.

"Unfettered access" sounds good, but these powerful words are meaningless.

This time last year the Foreign Office was saying: "The UK continues to put enormous effort into achieving a Middle East peace process, taking forward UNSCRs [United Nations Security Council resolutions] 1850 and 1860 to help achieve that aim." Six months earlier it had been saying:

We regularly remind the Israeli government of its obligations under international law on a variety of issues, including humanitarian access to Gaza as well as Israel's control of Gaza's waters and the effect it has on Gaza's fishing industry... The UK has been unequivocal in its calls to Israel to lessen restrictions at the Gaza crossings, allowing the legitimate flow of humanitarian aid, trade and reconstruction goods, and the movement of people. This is essential...

And in the aftermath of Israel's "Cast Lead" blitzkrieg on Gaza the Foreign Office wrote to me: "The UK will continue to make the case for a comprehensive approach to resolving the conflicts in the Middle East, comprehensive in the sense that real peace will only come when Israel and the whole Arab world are at peace."

How can you keep a straight face? The British government, where Israel is concerned, is "all mouth and trousers", as some would say. There's no sign whatsoever of UN Security Council Resolution 1860 or any of the mile-high stack of fine words being implemented, even though Britain and its friends, individually or collectively, have all the levers necessary to force Israel's compliance.

Dickens's Circumlocution Office is indeed alive and well and operating at full blast in London and other major centres in the West so as not to upset delinquent Israel and to make it appear that positive action, like sanctions, is not an option.
Palestinian Embassy infected by circumlocution bug
Even the Palestinian Embassy in London has caught the circumlocution bug, as shown in this statement by Ambassador Manuel Hassassian in response to the Al-Jazeera's publication of leaked documents giving details of talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority:

Al Jazeera's attempt to imitate WikiLeaks has propagated documents that allegedly were developed from our negotiations with Israel. Even if such documents are factual, they represent discussions of hypothetical scenarios with no concrete or absolute agreements. Concessions can only be made, and an agreement can only be reached, when signed and sealed through public referendum.

But some of these discussions focused on assets that were definitely not for discussion, not negotiable, not for sale and not up for referendum, did they not?

"Negotiations with Israel require considering and debating their point of view, their conditions and their agenda even if it's at the far-right of one's belief and position," continues the ambassador.

Negotiating and challenging these does not mean conciliation on our side, but in fact, an understanding of the issues and obstacles that face us as an authority and governance under occupation. We have tried the path of overt defiance and no-negotiations with Israel which was explicated by the latter to delegitimize the Palestinians.

Knowing what the state of Israel seeks only brings us closer to understanding that only a viable solution for the Palestinian leadership is the key to stability in the region. If these documents are authentic then this scandal has served only to prove that Israel is no partner for peace.

"I am against law – international law in particular"
Elsewhere in the statement there's this nugget of information:

The PNA's [Palestine National Authority] position speaks for itself grounded in the principles of international law with the respect to the rights of the Palestinian people. In 2007, Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, said to the negotiators that she was against international law and insisted that it could not be included in terms for reference in the talk "I was the minister of justice," she said, "But I am against law – international law in particular."

Knowing that the Israelis regard themselves to be above international law and that normal codes of conduct don't apply, what was the point of the Palestinians sitting down to obviously futile negotiations in the first place?

If ever there was a need for regime change, this is it. The Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, after putting off elections indefinitely, now sees the bravery and determination of Egypt's freedom movement with alarm and promises local elections "soon" and a general election afterwards. Hamas says it will boycott elections until a proper reconciliation is reached. Besides, many Hamas supporters in the West Bank have been rounded up by Fatah's thugs, thrown in jail and probably been tortured. Furthermore barmy Fatah is calling for an uprising in Gaza against democratically-elected Hamas!

Given Fatah's track record, who can trust them to organize fair elections or abide by the result if it goes against them?

The Washington Post reports:

For years ... US officials have engaged in back-channel talks with Egyptian members of the [Muslim Brotherhood] movement in recognition of its substantial popular support. The unofficial contacts have taken place sporadically since the 1990s but became more frequent after members of the Brotherhood were elected to the Egyptian Parliament in 2005. Afterward, US diplomats and lawmakers held several meetings with Brotherhood leaders... US officials justified the meetings by saying they were merely speaking with duly-elected members of the Egyptian legislature.

In which case the US has no excuse for refusing to talk with the Brotherhood's offshoot, Hamas. Ditto Britain and the EU. Including Hamas at long last will speed reconciliation, which the West claims it wants to see.

But are Western powers brave enough – just half as brave as, say, a young Egyptian democracy campaigner in Tahrir Square – to do this off their own bat? Or will they have to run to Tel Aviv and ask permission?

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Obama’s cave-in to Israel: letter suggests US not honest broker
• Wikileaks shocker: Did Abbas know in advance about the devastating blitz on his countrymen in Gaza?
• Somebody please hand Abbas the revolver on the silver tray

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Cartoon by Khalil Bendib

He must be asking himself – fearfully - why he has so far escaped the purge while his bosom-buddies Hosni and Zine are sent packing in disgrace.

Some say Abbas isn't a bad guy, he just lost his way. Actually there's a long crime-sheet against him, too tiresome to catalogue in detail here.

A founding member of Arafat's Fatah faction, he won the presidency of the Palestinian National Authority in 2005 in a dodgy and deeply lopsided contest – let's not dignify it with the word 'election' – in which Israel seriously interfered to obstruct other candidates. He has overstayed his term by two years and is widely regarded as having no legitimacy and no popular mandate, yet he's still propped up by the US and Israel and their hangers-on.

In 2007 he dissolved the Hamas-led unity government and appointed Salam Fayyad prime minister, a move that was almost certainly illegal under Palestinian Basic Law and designed to ensure the disunity and weakness that Israel so badly wanted to see.

He has been further undone by the Wikileaks revelations that the Israeli government "consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas".

A true Palestinian patriot surely would not have kept silent about an evil plan to commit war crimes against his fellow countrymen!

It seems he also asked Israel to tighten the blockade of his countrymen in Gaza, even inviting the racist entity to re-occupy the crossing zone between Gaza and Egypt.

It looked suspiciously like he was trying to bury the Goldstone report when he withdrew Palestinian support for a vote in the UN Human Rights Council to have it sent to the General Assembly for possible action. Such a vote would have been a first step toward war crimes tribunals, and it is reported that he was warned by US officials that this would complicate efforts to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks – by then hopelessly discredited anyway.

Abbas's security squads, funded by the US, have been rampaging around the West Bank doing the Israeli Occupation Force's dirty work, thuggishly suppressing all signs of resistance and rounding up Hamas members. And the PA has now abolished free expression by banning Palestinians from demonstrating in support of the Egyptians and the uprising in Tunisia.

Abbas phoned Mubarak to affirm his "solidarity" with him in the face of growing popular unrest and demands for him to quit. This was despite Mubarak having collaborated with Israel to help the rogue regime maintain its cruel and suffocating blockade of Gaza. Abbas also phoned the Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine bin Ali before he was ousted.

When he took up the post of president, Abbas would have sworn the following oath...

I swear to God almighty to be faithful to the Homeland and to its sacred places, and to the people and its national heritage, and to respect the Constitutional system and the law, and to safeguard the interests of the Palestinian people completely, as God is my witness.

May God zap him with a thunderbolt! He rode roughshod over the Basic Law, hijacked the presidency and turned the peace pantomime into a bloody farce. On his watch disunity became the name of the game while diplomatic skills were jettisoned, or more likely never mastered.

As for the national heritage and sacred places the loon's negotiators were ready to hand them to the enemy on a platter.

In times gone by, a high ranking loser would recognise when the game was up and do the decent thing. He would retire to his study and close the door. The butler would bring a glass of best brandy and a loaded revolver on a silver tray, and discreetly withdraw. After a few moments' reflection and penning a farewell note, the gentleman would blow his brains out and save everyone an awful lot of trouble.

The Palestinians had better have a credible Plan B in place when they hear the bang.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Wikileaks shocker: Did Abbas know in advance about the devastating blitz on his countrymen in Gaza?
• Will Abbas Sell Out On Palestinian Right Of Return?
• Abbas is a Man in Exile, Even Among His Own

By Ray Smith * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

More than three years after Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in the north of Lebanon was destroyed, its reconstruction is finally under way. However, the process runs at a slow pace and remains only partially funded as further political obstacles appear on the horizon. Meanwhile, the Lebanese army continues to maintain a tight grip on the camp's residents and attempts to silence any criticism.

Anyone approaching the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp on the highway connecting the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli to the Syrian border can see it -- the first row of houses are four stories high. After three years of tough negotiations, countless obstacles and various delays, reconstruction is actually underway.

The master plan for the reconstruction of the camp was prepared in early 2008, only half a year after a 15-week battle between the Lebanese army and the non-Palestinian militant group Fatah al-Islam that left the camp totally devastated. The camp's 30,000 residents were displaced, some for the third or fourth time since they were expelled from Palestine by Zionist militias in 1948 -- what Palestinians call the Nakba.

Delayed reconstruction

Reconstruction effectively kicked off in November 2009. "There were a number of problems getting the whole thing started, demining in the first place," said Charlie Higgins, Project Manager for the Reconstruction of Nahr al-Bared with the UN agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA). "When we started the backfilling there, the whole archaeological controversy and the related court injunction came up, effectively delaying the process for another five months," he explained, referring to a politically-motivated attempt by Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun in 2009 to stop reconstruction of the camp because of evidence of archaeological remains.

For practical reasons, the project was split into eight stages or "packages". The first stage -- consisting of 149 buildings which house 423 of more than 5,000 displaced families -- is approaching completion, however with significant delay. "We expect to be able to hand over a number of apartments probably in early 2011," Higgins said.

The main reasons for the delay are attributed to the construction company which subcontracted major parts of the work, adding additional layers of management that increased costs while reducing control of progress on site. Higgins said that without UNRWA's constant pressure and threats of penalties, less would have been done.

Most workers on the construction site are Syrians and Palestinians. One of them is "M," a resident of the Nahr al-Bared camp in his twenties. Almost three years ago, his family was permitted to return to the outskirts of the devastated camp. There, they've been living in steel containers, which residents call the "barracks," awaiting the reconstruction of their homes. "When we moved into the temporary housing, we didn't expect to be staying in there for such a long time," M said. "Living in the barracks has always been very difficult."

During the last years, unemployment, harsh living conditions, poverty, desperation and constant psychological stress have diminished M's initial hope for a quick return. Now, he's happy to have an income at least, although his job isn't safe. By working on the first stage, M is witnessing the slow pace of reconstruction. "I have no illusions," he admitted, "it will take a few more years until my family and I will be able to return home."

According to Higgins, UNRWA's efforts to get the contractor to employ Palestinians from the camp caused problems. "Workers need special permits to access the site, and to obtain them they may have to report to the headquarters of the Lebanese Armed Forces in al-Qubbe for investigation. This discourages some people from applying for jobs, and the contractor has cited the time taken as a factor beyond their control that delays the work."

Recently, backfilling work has started in parts of the area designated for stage two of the reconstruction. UNRWA anticipates its completion by autumn 2011. The agency is determined to avoid the delays it encountered in the first sector. In addition, three schools at UNRWA's coastal compound are under construction and will be ready by next summer.

One of the major obstacles on the way to rebuilding the camp is the lack of funding. "We have $120 million, but we still need another $209 million," said Higgins. Yet he remains optimistic that once the initial group of residents have moved into the first homes, donors will be encouraged to make further pledges. According to Higgins, "We'd have a strong case to say: we can prove it can be done. Now, what about the other 16,000 or 17,000 people we need to give back their homes?"

"The adjacent area"

Even more doubtful is the reconstruction of the immediate surroundings of the camp, which have been termed by UNRWA and the Lebanese government as the "adjacent area." The area forms a ring around the official boundaries of the camp and was inhabited by almost 10,000 Palestinian refugees. As the original camp became increasingly densely populated over time, houses grew in height and width, leaving hardly any place for streets and alleys. Consequently, many residents resettled in the camp's adjacent area.

Many homes in the surrounding area were either totally or partially destroyed in the war. The Vienna document of June 2008, outlining the Lebanese government's recovery and reconstruction strategy for the camp and the nearby municipalities, charged a Tripartite Committee consisting of the government itself, UNRWA and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) with the development of a full implementation plan for recovery and reconstruction in the adjacent area.

However, the committee was never formed. UNRWA denies having a role in the reconstruction of the adjacent area, limiting its responsibility to the camp's original site. Palestinian refugees living in the adjacent area are entitled to benefit from UNRWA's services as their registration with the agency is valid regardless of where they reside. UNRWA stresses its current infrastructure and efforts in the adjacent area have to be considered as temporary and within the agency's emergency response to the displacement of the residents.

Speaking on behalf of the PLO, Marwan Abdelal said bluntly: "In political terms, there's no partnership."

The Lebanese government has not taken part in any participatory mechanism, nor has it presented a plan for the adjacent area or undertaken any significant recovery efforts yet. However, it has compensated residents of the third-ring or outlying area of the camp for war-related losses.

Problems in the adjacent area have deep roots. Decades ago, zoning laws were violated when Lebanese private land plots were subdivided in order to sell them to Palestinians. This illegal practice is common to many Lebanese villages and poor neighborhoods. The Lebanese government and its appointed official responsible for the reconstruction of the camp, Sateh Arnaout, have made it clear that the zoning laws will be strictly followed. However, if the reconstruction in the adjacent area has to happen according to Lebanon's zoning laws, half of the existing buildings would actually have to be demolished.

In addition, approximately 90 percent of the refugees' land purchases before 2001 were never fully entered in the Lebanese land registry and remain listed under the name of the former Lebanese owners. Even worse, since 2001, Palestinians are forbidden to own or inherit property. Legal reconstruction and registration is therefore impossible.

"Palestinian residents in the adjacent area whose houses were totally destroyed are the first victims of this policy, as the government still blocks their reconstruction," said Abdelal. "At least we've successfully intervened concerning the rehabilitation of the partially demolished homes."

At a recent conference at the American University of Beirut, Rana Hassan, a Master of Urban Policy and Planning candidate at the university's Architecture and Design Department, stated that a different approach is needed by the Lebanese government. She cited precedents such as the reconstruction in south Lebanon's villages and Beirut's southern Dahiya suburb after the destructive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in July 2006. Nevertheless, the Lebanese government's Recovery and Reconstruction Cell (RRC) seems to stubbornly insist on strict adherence to zoning laws when it comes to Nahr al-Bared.

No freedom of movement

Three years after the end of hostilities in Nahr al-Bared, the refugee camp and the adjacent area remain a military zone. Checkpoints manned by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), a rigid permit system and recently reenforced barbed wire restrict access to the camp. For years, residents have protested this access regime without success. UNRWA's Higgins said that the agency believes the return of the first residents will be a change on the ground that could lead to more positive developments on access in general.

However, Abdelal argued that "The war has ended three years ago, so there's no need for the army's presence anymore."

Nor has the army eased its entry restrictions in response to the construction. "We haven't seen any significant change on access over recent months," Higgins acknowledged. Although Lebanese citizens can enter without special permits, they're subjected to questioning at the checkpoints. The refugees' permits are valid longer than before, but visitors or nongovernmental organization personnel face even more difficulties to obtaining entry permits.

Within the camp, hardly anyone dares to speak up against the LAF. "Freedom of speech is massively restricted," said Ismael Sheikh Hassan, an architect and urban planner who has worked with the community-based Nahr al-Bared Reconstruction Commission for several years. "Anyone in Nahr al-Bared can be arrested by the military intelligence and be held without access to family, lawyers, etc.," he explained. He says there are many cases that were never publicized, partly due to the fact that hardly any journalists manage to obtain army permits to access the camps.

Sheikh Hassan is convinced that under military siege, the camp's economy will never be able to function. Its residents are now almost completely dependent on international assistance.

"More importantly," Hassan said, "under the army's restrictions, there is no chance for reestablishing relations between the camp and the surrounding communities to return to a level of normality."

Even if some restrictions were relaxed, Hassan stated, any prolongation of the militarization and siege of the camp might have irreversible consequences. "Economies and consumer patterns might shift and Nahr al-Bared might never be able to return to its previous economic role in the region," he said.

Silencing the critics

In mid-August, Sheikh Hassan was arrested at a checkpoint when entering Nahr al-Bared. He was held for three days. His interrogation revealed that he was apparently detained because of an article he wrote for the Lebanese newspaper as-Safir describing the conditions in Nahr al-Bared. After his release, it remains unclear whether he'll have to appear in front of a court.

"The situation is gray," Hassan explained. "There is no official court date. But also, there's no acquittal that I'm innocent."

Over the past few months, the LAF have been conducting a campaign of intimidation against its critics. Recently, the director of a nongovernmental organization operating in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp had his entry permit revoked after criticizing the LAF. Also, since July, the LAF refused to issue permits to the staff of another organization, the Palestinian Human Rights Organization (PHRO).

Ghassan Abdallah, the PHRO's director, is an outspoken opponent of the LAF's permit regime and intimidation practices in Nahr al-Bared. The PHRO recently released a report examining restrictions on freedom of movement in the camp (Lebanese Restrictions on Freedom of Movement [PDF]). On 5 October, Abdallah was invited by Lebanese military intelligence to have a cup of coffee at the al-Qubbe army base. When he arrived at the base four days later, Abdallah was interrogated for three hours and even threatened with torture. In particular, Abdallah was questioned about a dialogue meeting on the LAF's access policy to Nahr al-Bared that he had co-organized.

"The security zone," Abdallah said, "is neither legal, nor humane. There's no excuse for it after three years." However, army intelligence doesn't accept this kind of criticism, he said. He expressed his outrage that after an official meeting where the Lebanese-Palestinian Dialogue Committee and the LAF were represented, he was interrogated by military intelligence.

On 16 October, Lebanese activist and blogger Farah Kobeissi was arrested at the al-Abdi checkpoint at the northern entrance to Nahr al-Bared and interrogated for 14 hours after protesting against the army which denied her entry to the camp. During the protest, she held a banner stating: "No to the humiliating permits in Nahr al-Bared Camp."

The LAF maintains full authority over the camp, which it is not reluctant to display. Three months ago, it unveiled a monument dedicated to the fallen Lebanese soldiers of the Nahr al-Bared battle at the northern entrance to the camp.

Construction worker "M" is upset that the monument doesn't mention the fifty Palestinian civilians who were killed in the conflict. "This is the wrong place for this statue," he said. "They shouldn't have put it right in front of our camp."

Palestinians a "special category"

Nahr al-Bared isn't just a Palestinian refugee camp that was destroyed and has to be rebuilt. It showcases the difficult situation of the more than 400,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, who have faced massive discrimination for more than sixty years.

At the American University of Beirut, associate professor Sari Hanafi closely observes Palestinian-Lebanese relations. He understands Lebanon's desire to have full control over its territory and inhabitants. "However," he said, "when you talk about sovereignty, you have to define who's subjected to it." For decades, Lebanon's Palestinians have been treated as a special category.

Hanafi stressed that Lebanon finally has to clarify the Palestinians' status, bear the consequences and abolish their discrimination. "If it considers them foreigners," he said, "they need to be given the possibility to work, own property and join the professional syndicates. If it considers them refugees, they have to be given all their refugee rights according to the 1951 Refugee Convention."

The debate on the Palestinians' legal situation is directly connected to the Nahr al-Bared camp, where the Lebanese police have established a center. According to the Vienna document, "community policing" is to be implemented in the camp. The project is funded with $5 million by the United States. On the ground however, the LAF and the military intelligence remain in charge. Many residents compare their rule to the former Deuxieme Bureau, the military intelligence service which had harsly controlled the Palestinian refugee camps the 1950s and '60s.

Hanafi considers the police deployment as highly problematic, as long as the inhabitants' status isn't clearly defined. "I see the police stationed in Nahr al-Bared as a counterinsurgency police, not a community police," he said. "There's no agreement with the local popular committee. On the contrary -- the first thing the police did was outlaw all the Palestinian structures there."

"In any case: If any Lebanese police in Nahr al-Bared were to implement the current discriminatory law, nearly anyone in the camp would have to be arrested -- for owning property, for working in forbidden professions, etc," Hanafi added.

Hanafi said Palestinians have legitimate reason to fear the police. "They are right in saying: 'Before you bring the police, let us know if we can have shops, associations and a popular committee.'"

Earlier this month, the UN Human Rights Council reviewed the human rights situation in Lebanon. Many member states accused Lebanon of discriminating against the Palestinian refugees. Their recommendations focused on freedom of movement, property rights and access to all professions -- which were rejected by the Lebanese government. Similarly, Norway's specific request to allow free entry into and exit from the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp was also rejected by the Lebanese delegation.

The Nahr al-Bared refugee camp highlights every aspect of the problematic relationship between Lebanon and the Palestinian refugees within its borders. However, the Lebanese government would be better served by viewing the camp as a chance to radically change the traditionally conflict-ridden relationship in which Palestinians are only viewed as a "security issue." This could be achieved by respecting Palestinians' civil rights and seriously engaging in the reconstruction of the camp.

All images by Ray Smith.

* Ray Smith is a freelance journalist and activist with the anarchist media collective a-films, which has documented developments in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp for the past three years.

Related posts:

• Video: Nahr al-Bared Between Past and Present
• Video: Nahr al-Bared Camp – A Sip of Coffee
• Music: Rebellious rhymes from Nahr al-Bared camp

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

One of the most grotesque Wikileaks revelations so far is the disclosure that Palestinian top dog (Fatah section), Mahmoud Abbas, was told in advance about the murderous assault on his countrymen in Gaza two years ago.

Some claim that the Wikileaks eye-openers are a 'dirty tricks' operation by people with a large axe to grind. It is certainly odd that ‘evidence’ is selected to portray Arab states as eager to see Iran zapped for an unproven nuclear threat when, actually, the Middle East is far more anxious about the very real and present nuclear threat from Israel.

That same mentality would no doubt wish to drive an ever bigger wedge between Fatah and political rival Hamas.

So what are we to make of the documents claiming that in a June 2009 meeting between Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and a U.S. congressional delegation, Barak said that the Israeli government "had consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas"?

Fatah deny that it happened. Top aid to Palestinian president Abbas, Saeb Erekat, said: "We knew about the war because the Israelis were saying there was going to be a war."

Several months before it started, at a meeting that he, Erekat, attended, Abbas asked Israel's then-prime minister, Ehud Olmert, not to go to war, saying "he would not go to Gaza on an Israeli tank."

So they admit they were talking about it…

I put the question to the Palestinian ambassador in London, Professor Manual Hassassian. "I am surprised to read the Wikileaks revelation that Mr Abbas, along with Mr Mubarak, was informed of Operation Cast lead in advance. I don't recall his issuing a public warning to the unfortunate people of Gaza or appealing to the UN and western powers to intervene. Why would a Palestinian president keep quiet about an evil and horrendous war-crime he knew was about to be committed against his own people? Can you please throw any light on the matter?"

The ambassador replied: "I am surprised as you are, and cannot confirm the Wikileaks revelation whether they are authentic or not."

No flat-out denial then, nor did he say he would refer the question upwards for clarification. You'd think the embassy would wish to show a clean pair of hands.

Abbas, as we all know, is living his elevated lifestyle on borrowed time. Since January 2009, when his term as president officially expired, western-backed Abbas has clung like superglue to power and overstayed his welcome. A year ago, having already taken a one-year extension regarded by many, including Hamas, as unlawful, he announced he had no wish to seek re-election at a presidential poll he promised for last January. But January came and went, and there was still no presidential election. Abbas is now nearing the end of his second year of illegitimate tenure.

I have two vivid images of Palestinians. The first, in Gaza, was the sight of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and the crusty old Catholic priest, Fr Manuel Mussallam, who had guarded his flock through utmost deprivation and the darkest of days (with many more to come), standing shoulder to shoulder in front of the microphones and cameras, both proclaiming that they were Palestinians first and Muslim/Christian second.

That’s unity of a welcome sort.

The other is of Fatah playing Israel's armed poodle, reminiscent of the Vichy French government’s militia set up to fight the French Resistance and do much of the Nazis’ dirty work. Is Fatah prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Gaza Palestinians against the common enemy – the occupier - and proclaim themselves "Palestinians first" and Fatah/Hamas second?

Judging by their track record, no. Arrest and torture of their own people is more their game, we hear.

That’s disunity of the worst kind.

And you have to wonder why, if the story’s true, the Israelis felt comfortable discussing with the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority what would happen after their tanks and aircraft had pulverized the Gaza part of Palestine and shredded and vaporized its women and children.

A genuine leader knowing about plans for such a mega-crime would surely have sounded the alert and raised merry hell at the UN for preventive action.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• Will Abbas Sell Out On Palestinian Right Of Return?
• How can Israel & Abbas continue to ignore the only force managing Gaza
• Who Can Save Mahmoud Abbas?

By Lawrence Davidson* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Illustration by Nizar

This is not unusual for President Obama. From the beginning of his administration he has ignored history. His most notable early example was when he refused to investigate the prima facie war crimes of his predecessors, crimes which the Nuremberg prosecutors would have easily recognized. Instead he proclaimed a new day. We will look forward he said, and not backward. It was a foolish statement for such a reportedly bright man, for where does he think the new day and the fresh future come from? The present and the future are built on the past. With all due respect, only the very near sighted can suppose that they can defy historical gravity and float above it all, sublimely free of all roots.

So now President Obama takes the podium in New York and tells us the following:

1. Obama: "Make no mistake: the courage of a man like President Abbas-who stands up for his people in front of the world-is far greater than those who fire rockets at innocent women and children."

A. Historical Context: "President" Abbas is a heartily disliked fellow who helped usurp power from the legally elected government of Palestine. The United States under George Bush Jr. helped him do so. Thus, the Abbas's regime, internally supported by little else than the remnants of Fatah, is now in control of the West Bank and cooperates with the Israeli occupation army. Given such an historical record Abbas cannot "stand for his people in front of the world" except in the propaganda picture painted by his American ally. Abbas's regime is wholly dependent on U.S. and European money and American weapons and military training.

We can surmise two probable reasons why Abbas is presently sitting at the table with the Israelis: One - the Obama administration has twisted his arm, perhaps by threatening to abandon him if he does not "negotiate." They probably hope they can pressure him into signing a "peace" deal that no other Palestinian leader would ever touch. What "courage" Abbas has, at least to this point, does not go so far as to stand up to the Americans on whom he is so dependent. Two - the Obama administration has promised him support, whatever that might mean. This same level of dependency means Abbas must conveniently forget history-that such promises coming from Washington have always been worthless.

2. Obama: "If an agreement is not reached, Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that come with their own state [and] Israelis will never know the certainty and security that come with sovereign and stable neighbors who are committed to coexistence."

A. Historical Context: The Palestinians have been struggling for a state of their own for at least 75 years. They have been betrayed by outsiders so often that it defies reasons to believe that any America president truly cares about their pride and dignity. After so many years of struggle facing a foe who, by the way, has never cared a fig about "stable neighbors" or "coexistence" or even about "security" (which Israel equates with being armed to the teeth by the U.S.) the Palestinians have been able to find "pride and dignity" in one thing only-resistance.

3. Does President Obama know any of this? If so does he understand it? It is questionable for him next tells us that killing Israelis is not resistance and "it will do nothing to help the Palestinian people?" Oh. Well then, what will? What has? What can?

A. Historical Context: Only someone devoid of historical knowledge and context concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can possibly believe that it is the Palestinians who presently, as a strategy, go out of their way to target "innocent women and children." What isolated incidents of this sort you can find pale in comparison with the behavior of the ally Washington arms and protects. There is a recent B'Tselem report entitled, "Void of Responsibility: Israeli Military Policy Not to Investigate killings of Palestinians by Soldiers." It demonstrates that the Israelis have been killing innocent Palestinians with impunity. Historically, they have been doing so from a time before President Obama was born. Against this tireless brutality, Palestinian attacks on imperialist settlers and firing rockets devoid of warheads from that open air prison of Gaza that Israel has created, are tragic expressions of despair. And, sadly, historically, they are the only source of "pride and dignity" Israel and the United States have left to the Palestinians. Finally, it would take enormous hypocrisy for Obama, or any American leader whosoever, to point a moral finger at the Palestinians. Their hands are much too bloody to stomach anything like that.

4. Obama: "It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy will only be met by the unshakable opposition of the United States."

A. Historical Context: Well, speak for yourself Mr. President. You certainly do not speak for a fast-growing number of people worldwide whose efforts in this regard you cannot stop. And it is this effort, this movement of civil society both within and without the U.S., that has the best chance of bringing down the racist regime to which you pledge such solidarity. Ideally, what will it be replaced with? Well, U.S. leaders are always saying they want to see more democracy in this world. And that is what Israel needs. It needs the Zionist government to be replaced with something truly democratic that will support real civil and political rights for all Israelis, regardless of religion. So, one can only hope that standing against those "chipping away" at Zionist racism puts President Obama on the wrong side of history.

It was Oscar Wilde, a man who had his own confrontation with a viciously discriminatory social system, who once said, "A set of assumptions committing suicide is always a depressing spectacle." And so it was on September 23 in New York. After so many years of tragedy we still witness our political leaders working from assumptions that are suicidal. That destroy justice and prolong oppression.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

Related posts:

• Rabbi Ovadia describes US president as “a slave” ruling the world
• President Obama’s opportunity to speak truth to power, Part 2 – Rahm Emanuel does it for him
• New speech by President Obama for real change

How can Palestinians ensure their rights are protected and fulfilled if an agreement is reached?

By Nadia Hijab* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Overview

Many commentators expect the direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians to fail. But there is a much worse scenario: What if they "succeed?" The United States appears determined to push for a framework agreement within a year and both Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA), are aiming for that goal. Such an agreement, U.S. peace envoy George Mitchell explained in a September 2 press conference, would be more than a declaration of principles but less than a peace treaty. In it, the two sides would reach the "fundamental compromises" necessary for a peace accord. Like its predecessor, the Obama administration has already indicated that the accord would still have to be fleshed out and then implemented over the course of several years - which virtually ensures that it will be delayed if not derailed as happened to past peace accords.

If the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and PA were unable to secure a sovereign state and rights through U.S.-brokered negotiations with Israel between 1993 and 2000, when they were in a much stronger position, they are highly unlikely to do so today with such a badly skewed Israeli-Palestinian power dynamic. Instead, next year is likely to see a grand ceremony where Palestinian leaders will sign away the right of return and other Palestinian rights in an agreement that would change little on the ground. The plan of the PA's appointed prime minister, Salam Fayyad, to declare a Palestinian state in 2011 could unwittingly contribute to this outcome by providing the appearance of an "end of conflict" while the reality remains unchanged. If the rest of the world sees that the government of "Palestine" is satisfied with international recognition and a U.N. seat, they will be happy to move on to other problems leaving the Palestinians at Israel's mercy.

Such a scenario could sound a death-knell for Palestinian human rights. The Palestinian people have shown a remarkable capacity to regenerate resistance and evolve new strategies after suffering harsh setbacks over the past century. But there may be no recovery this time around. A "peace agreement" would end the applicability of international law to the resolution of the conflict; permanently fragment the Palestinian people; and demobilize Arab and international solidarity.

What can Palestinians do to forestall abrogation of their fundamental rights and to ensure just peace? In a contribution to the debate around this question, this brief examines five areas that are key to Palestinians determined to persevere until rights are realized: Unifying the Palestinian body politic; espousing common goals; applying international law; using appropriate tactics; and strengthening the Arab and international movement of solidarity. It concludes with some suggestions for strategies in each area.

Unifying the Palestinian Body Politic

A unified body politic is perhaps the most important source of power for the Palestinian people. However, since the Oslo Accords were signed the PLO has no longer represented the Palestinian refugees and exiles, while the Palestinian citizens of Israel have been left to fend for themselves. The PLO has essentially ceased to exist as a functional organization, and the PA has effectively taken over such functions as appointing diplomatic representatives overseas. Hamas continues to be excluded from the PLO and the Hamas-Fatah split further fragments and erodes the Palestinian political voice.

Beyond the political level, each segment of the Palestinian people faces tough challenges. Palestinian citizens of Israel, after articulating a vision of full equality within Israel, now face a harsh crackdown.¹ Palestinians in Gaza, under siege for four years and geographically disconnected from the West Bank and the outside world, remain steadfast in the face of Israeli oppression. Palestinians in Jerusalem are isolated and face expulsions and home demolitions as Israel continues its policy of Judaizing the city.

In the West Bank, part of the population, exhausted after repeated onslaughts, wants to live a normal life even in small enclaves. At the same time, the popular struggle against Israel's Wall and the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement are rooted in the West Bank. It is not clear which is the stronger force: those that are "co-optable" or those who resist. What is clear is that the PA is seeking to "manage" both the popular struggle and BDS, providing funding for some segments of the former and claiming the mantle of BDS with a limited campaign targeting the sale of Israeli settlement products.

Palestinian refugees face serious human rights violations in many of the Arab countries where they are based. Attempts to forge communities of Palestinian exiles in Western countries have had varying success, but nowhere have they established the kind of lobby created by American Jews. The ability of Palestinian exiles to physically reconnect with Palestine, which many were doing during the 1990s and 2000s, is being circumscribed by increasingly restrictive Israeli measures.

Against this background, it is not clear how, when, or even whether, the Palestinian people could revive the PLO. Even if there were no Hamas-Fatah split, the very existence of the PA, its narrow mandate, and its determination to function within the American ambit militates against an independent voice for the Palestinians.

Are there signs of other leadership options? The BDS movement launched by the Palestinian Civil Society Call of 2005 is now being directed by a BDS National Committee (the BNC) which groups representatives of all nationalist, Islamist and other political parties as well as civil society organizations. However the BNC is unlikely, in the near future, to provide the kind of leadership provided, for example, by the United National Leadership of the first Intifada. The current political splits and jockeying for power make it easier for Palestinian political and civil forces to unify around a strategy for rights -- BDS -- rather than to forge a national leadership.

Espousing a Common Set of Goals

In the years since the Palestinian National Charter was recognized in 1968 as the common statement of Palestinian goals, there has been a loss of direction regarding the ultimate objective of the Palestinian struggle.² The PLO gradually shifted from the objective of a secular, democratic state in all of Palestine to supporting the two-state solution. This was formalized after the Palestinian National Council accepted the two-state solution in 1988. It was also "understood," although this was never formally stated, that the Palestinian right of return would have to be implemented within the Palestinian state for some of the Palestinian refugees with, at best, compensation for the rest.

No other national documents that set out Palestinian goals emerged until the 2005 Civil Society Call for BDS and the 2006 Palestinian Prisoners' Document. However, the Prisoners' Document has not been made operational, in the sense of being carried forward by one or more political groups. By contrast, the Civil Society Call is being made operational through the BDS movement. The Call upholds the Palestinian right to self-determination and sets three goals: freedom from occupation, equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and realization of the right of return. Unfortunately, most Palestinians and their supporters focus on the strategy of BDS rather than the goals of the Civil Society Call.

The importance of having common goals for a human rights movement cannot be overstated - as South Africans can attest. As a revised Oslo-like process threatens to undermine Palestinian rights, Palestinians and their supporters must have clear goals to know what constitutes success, what violates the national consensus, and when to demobilize. Such goals are even more crucial in the absence of a leadership committed to Palestinian rights. In this context, clear goals provide a reference point for Palestinians and enable them to organize effectively.

Today, the 2005 Civil Society Call is the only clear statement of goals available to the Palestinians that is broadly accepted by a wide swath of civil and political forces within and outside historic Palestine. Moreover it is grounded in international law, including the right to self-determination, and the goals encompass Palestinians under occupation, in exile, and in Israel (See Omar Barghouti's policy brief). As such, the Call's value goes well beyond the BDS strategy, effective as this is proving to be.

Upholding International Law and Human Rights

International law and human rights are vital to the just resolution of the Palestinian conflict. They enable Palestinians to set their goals in a framework that the international community is pledged, in theory, to uphold. They also provide some protection against being pressured into agreements that do not fulfill minimum rights. Indeed, it is significant that the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the illegality of Israel's Wall urged the international community to apply international law to this conflict. The 2005 Civil Society Call, issued on the first anniversary of the ICJ Advisory Opinion, responds to this challenge.

Moreover, applying the discourse of human rights to the conflict is a powerful, non-violent strategy. It exposes Israel's greatest weakness: the racist underpinnings of Zionism and its implementation. The values of universal human rights are much more powerful than the concept that a group of people is entitled to be privileged by ethnicity or religion, with no obligation to acknowledge or pay reparations for their persistent ethnic cleansing of a country's indigenous inhabitants. The relevance of international law to conflict resolution does not stop at Palestine's door: It matters to the evolution of humanity at large. By upholding human rights, the Palestinians help protect this universal framework from Israeli, U.S., and other efforts to subvert it.

Using Appropriate Tactics

Every era calls for appropriate tactics to achieve stated goals. Certainly the use of armed struggle was a valid and effective tactic in the early days of the Palestinian national liberation struggle. However, the value of armed struggle today is something that needs to be subjected to dispassionate examination. In particular, if the goals are stated in terms of international law then Palestinians must also uphold this in their choice of tactics. It should first be emphasized that under international law Palestinians have the right to resist occupation, including armed resistance. Yet under the same set of laws, deliberately targeting civilians can constitute a war crime, as most recently articulated in the UN-commissioned Goldstone Report, no matter which party (Israel or the Palestinians) does so and what weapons are used.

Furthermore, the use of weapons puts Palestinians in the arena where Israel is strongest and they are weakest. It enables Israel to use the security argument to obscure its crimes. And weapons do not target Israel's most serious weaknesses -- its claim to ethnic and religious superiority and its refusal to acknowledge its responsibility for past and ongoing Palestinian dispossession. It is worth noting that during the first Intifada, the Palestinians were able to achieve successes similar to the armed struggle of the PLO a quarter of a century earlier: putting the question of Palestine on the map, and attracting a powerful international solidarity movement, official and non-governmental. Today, civil resistance and BDS, coupled with international solidarity, are strengthening the Palestinians and weakening Israelis.

Among the strategies used in the struggle for human rights, the Palestinians urgently need to identify the most effective ways to stay on the land of Palestine. The non-violent popular struggle against Israel's Wall in the Occupied West Bank has scored some successes and has renewed grassroots leadership in an echo of the first Intifada (see Jamal Juma's policy brief). However, Israel is still relentlessly carving up the West Bank and depopulating the Jordan Valley and East Jerusalem, as it is the Negev and other areas where Palestinians are the majority inside Israel. Without Palestinians on the land of Palestine, as Israel knows only too well, the Palestinian cause will be impossible to sustain.

Strengthening Arab and International Solidarity

For decades, the PLO and PA have not reached out to Arab peoples in an organized fashion, largely content to deal with Arab governments. Nor did they nurture the diplomatic support of the non-aligned movement and other friendly countries, at a time when Israel was actively wooing African and Asian states, or strengthen strategic ties with friendly European and post-Soviet Union countries. Arab sympathies remain with the Palestinians but few have any sense of how they can help. Palestinian refugees and exiles can play an important outreach role to Arab peoples, without interfering in internal Arab affairs. At the same time, in seeking solidarity Palestinians must stand in solidarity with Arabs on issues of concern to them (see the Al-Shabaka Roundtable The Role of the Palestinian Diaspora that began this discussion).

The international solidarity movement of civil society is being rapidly revived through the popular struggle and BDS, as well as the outrage at Israel's attacks on Gaza, on the "Freedom Flotilla," and other trampling of international law. New forms of state support are emerging in countries like Turkey and Malaysia. A peace deal that does not fulfill Palestinian rights risks defusing this mobilization, as happened to the powerful international solidarity movement of the 1980s, which used to fill the halls of UN during the annual conference on the question of Palestine.

Recommendations

In each of the areas addressed above, strategies have emerged or are needed to sustain the struggle to fulfill Palestinian human rights. Some examples and suggestions are given below.

• Unifying the Palestinian body politic. Alongside efforts to foster national unity and to revive the PLO, there is a need for increased investment in activities that bring Palestinians together across borders (as, indeed, Al-Shabaka seeks to do) without neglecting any segment of the Palestinian people, in exile, under occupation, and in Israel. There is also need to further invest in the Palestinian capacity to remain steadfast on the land and in exile, while recognizing that those who live on the land of Palestine have a greater ability to influence the Palestinian future. Palestinians in exile also need to use every possible means to remain in physical contact with the land of Palestine and find ways to counter the many tactics Israel uses to prevent them.
• Espouse common goals. Palestinians should disseminate the goals of Civil Society Call as widely and as clearly as possible to compatriots everywhere, explaining the value of the BDS strategy but also drawing attention to other strategies that can uphold these goals, for example nurturing relations with the peoples of Arab host countries. And they should communicate the goals as widely as possible to international civil society so that it remains mobilized until they are achieved. Further, Palestinians need to be prepared to issue public statements and take appropriate actions to inform world governments that any agreement that does not meet these goals will be rejected - and resisted - by the majority of the Palestinian people.
• Applying international law. Palestinians need to invest in education and awareness-raising around the relevant human rights principles and conventions that apply to this as well as to other conflicts such as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also important to frame messages in terms of universal rights and values that are easily grasped by people everywhere.
• Applying appropriate tactics. There is a need to initiate wide-ranging discussions about the effectiveness of various options for resistance, especially among youth. It is also important to engage the energies of Palestinians of all ages who have been excluded from the political process so that they can make a tangible contribution to the struggle by identifying tactics relevant to their local contexts that help to achieve the common goals.
• Strengthening Arab and international solidarity. In addition to the kind of outreach and education described above, Palestinians need to make time to understand the struggles their supporters face at home - including racism, poverty, and inequality - and find ways to support them

The suggestions are intended to contribute to and encourage debate. Whether there is a "peace agreement" or Israel continues to impose its military and political will to derail an agreement, it is imperative that Palestinians discuss, formulate and communicate the best strategies to achieve their goals. Otherwise this latest "peace process" may succeed in terminally demobilizing the Palestinian struggle for rights.

Footnotes

1. The three vision documents are excerpted in the Journal Palestine Studies Volume XXXVI, No. 4, Summer 2007, pp. 73 -100

2. In 1996, the Palestinian National Council amended the Charter at U.S. and Israeli insistence to remove articles contrary to the letters exchanged by the P.L.O. and Israel in 1993. None of Israel's founding documents were amended to recognize Palestinian rights.

* Nadia Hijab is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies, a syndicated columnist for Agence Global, and a frequent public speaker and media commentator. Hijab co-authored Citizens Apart: A Portrait of Palestinians in Israel (I. B. Tauris). She was Editor-in-Chief of the London-based Middle East magazine before moving to New York to join the United Nations. In 2000 she established a consulting business on human rights, human development, and gender. She has served as co-chair of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and she is a past president of the Association of Arab American University Graduates.

(Al-Shabaka)

Related posts:

• Khaled Meshaal Interview: Hamas Chief Weighs In on Eve of Peace Talks
• Hypocrisy Defined: Another Round of Peace Talks
• Israel threatens to quit peace talks over UN war crimes vote

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

So criminal within itself, it flinches from upholding the rule of international law. So corrupt, it happily outsources its foreign policy to terrorists in Tel Aviv. The idea that America acts as an honest broker for peace between its fellow cut-throat Israel and their victim, Palestine, on whose neck the Zionist jackboot is firmly planted, is a joke that is only funny in the hysterical sense.

The idea that any country, let alone America, would promote talks where one party is expected to make concessions to another which is bent on land-theft and whose government can only survive if it continues to defy international law, is madness. But Obama is up for it.

Why did Palestinian leaders allow themselves to be sucked into this instead of going over America's head to the UN and campaigning intelligently for implementation of the rulings the world community had already made?

The Fatah dominated Palestinian Authority is an abomination. Nearly everyone I meet agrees. Its leaders have so fouled the nest that the stink is unbearable. This treacherous body needs dismantling and replacing with a genuine grassroots democratic organisation. Whether this would mean the revival of the Palestinian National Council, as Alan Hart suggests in his article Does the Palestinian Diaspora Care Enough To Become Engaged?, or something more radical, is open to debate.

I cannot bring myself to nod agreement when he says that "it is unrealistic to expect the governments of the major powers either to use the leverage they have to call and hold the Zionist state to account for its past crimes, or to intervene to prevent the crimes it will commit in a foreseeable future". I suspect he's right but it is a shocking indictment of the West's morality and I prefer to think that, when the crunch comes, the West's leaders will, like Arab leaders, be more terrified of their masses than scared of offending the Zionists and Americans.

That day might not be too far off for the battle is now joined against the enemy in our midst - the Zionist stooges who are embedded in our political fabric and work behind the scenes to prop up the swaggering invader of the Holy Land. Increasing awareness of these people and their vile agenda will generate disgust and waves of anger that will eventually turn into a hurricane and purge them.

"We ain't seen nothing yet"

What is at stake here is not so much Palestine but human decency. The hope must be that the innate humanity of ordinary people will eventually triumph against the Zionist abomination and the treachery of their own governments.

In the meantime we see civil society - individuals and unions - across the globe taking action against Israel's trade and cultural interests in defiance of their corrupted political leaders.

I agree that there's little point in demanding the right of return unless those exiled are clamouring for it in a concerted way. But I don't believe the Palestinian diaspora has a chance of exerting the necessary pressure as long as there are no Palestinian embassies or delegations energetic enough and patriotic enough to mobilise an uprising of the exiles.

However, a wider international movement (not just the diaspora) might well be able to blow the Zionist walls down, and we have been treated to brilliant flashes of this possibility from the various Free Gaza initiatives.

We ain't seen nothing yet, I suggest.

To their shame Palestine's ambassadors/delegates, under Fatah orders presumably, practise what can only be described as 'the silent routine'. In other words they operate a communications blackout. Fatah want to keep their villainous antics under wraps and don't believe they have a duty to inform and persuade.

Here in the UK the ambassador, last time I looked, hadn't updated the Delegation website for several months. Today, as I write this, the website is not even accessible. Emails from the ambassador's desk are mainly about entertainment events within London's wonderful social whirl. Press releases and briefings on issues that matter are rarely seen.

And get this. A local branch of the PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign) is arranging a fundraising supper next month with the ambassador as guest speaker. But the word on the street is that the organisers will have to pay his and his wife's expenses.

As one member remarked, "It's like we are holding this supper as banquet to honour him so what we are going to raise will be spent on his majesty's transportation and accommodation!"

You couldn't make it up, could you?

Of course, this is one way to keep the diaspora demoralised. The ambassador is said to be having difficulty getting any money through from Ramallah. Considering the huge flow of funds into the PA, the idea that the first £150+ of money raised from supporters of Palestinian freedom should be gifted as another subsidy to the discredited and unrepresentative outfit run by Abbas and his henchmen, is preposterous. The PA thinks nothing of sending a squad of thugs out to Hebron to beat up the family of Ahmed Amr because he delivered a sermon at Friday prayers, and has vast sums of money to mount countless other brutal and oppressive operations against their own people.

If he cannot afford to cut a decent figure the ambassador should of course step down, pack his bags and go back to his lucrative job in the West Bank. This same ambassador has complained before that the Delegation in London lacks funds. One wonders how hard he fought to get proper resources. Wouldn't the right thing be to resign in disgust?

"Arabs don't see the importance of image building"

It is not enough to have a just cause. You must work hard to communicate the fact and convince the global public to support it.

An Arab friend recently told me: "I am afraid the concept of PR [public relations] is alien to the overwhelming majority of Arabs."

"The Palestinians have been suffering on the receiving end of Israel's PR for decades," I replied. "They must know its importance by now."

"Of course," he said, "but most Arabs, including Palestinians, definitely don't appreciate the importance of PR and image building. That's why they're so crap at it. And that's why Hamas can't seem to appreciate the damage its charter, and the language in which it is framed, is doing to it and to the Palestinian cause."

The essential point is that Arabs, and especially Palestinians, can no longer afford to be "crap at it". They must embrace it and master it.

And what did I read in Maan News yesterday?

"President Mahmoud Abbas will visit Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's residence in Jerusalem on Wednesday to continue peace negotiations," according to his spokesman.

What message does he think this sends? Why isn't he insisting on neutral ground for talks... Next they'll be going on holiday together with their buckets and spades.

It seems to me as an outsider - and Palestinians must win over outsiders if they are to make progress - that the future hinges largely on Hamas, who at least are fiercely patriotic, see the enemy for what they really are and have a healthy contempt. Whether they act entirely in the interests of the Palestinian people I wouldn't like to say. But they are no fools and have a reputation of being incorruptible, which is why the US won't talk with them.

Some in the Hamas government are fairly moderate but, as my friend points out, their core constituents believe in an Islamic state governed by shari'ah law, such as prevailed in the Arabian desert 1,500 years ago!

Hamas, if they are going anywhere, will have to face facts - namely that "most Palestinians do not want shari'ah or an Islamic state of any kind, and world public opinion will always be put off by this shari'ah nonsense."

When that is accepted, as it must be sooner or later, daylight will shine through and put a different complexion on matters.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Related posts:

• “A framework agreement” between Israel and Palestinians: precursor to talks without end
• Mitchell hoping for a quick-fix fake peace?
• More pointless talks with Israel?

By Alan Hart* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Will future historians conclude that the Palestinian diaspora betrayed its occupied and oppressed brothers and sisters?

By Naji al-Ali

The real history of the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel invites the conclusion that the Arab regimes - more by default than design in my view - betrayed the Palestinians. The question this article addresses is: Will future historians conclude that the Palestinian diaspora betrayed its occupied and oppressed brothers and sisters?

There's no mystery about the Arab (regime) betrayal. When the Palestine file was closed by Israel's 1948 victory on the battlefield and the armistice agreements, the divided and impotent Arab regimes secretly shared the same hope as the Zionists and the major powers. It was that the file would remain closed for ever. The Palestinians were supposed to accept their lot as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency.

Nor is there any mystery about why the Arab regimes were at one with the Zionists and the major powers in hoping that there would never be a regeneration of Palestinian nationalism. They all knew that if there was, there would one day have to be a confrontation with Zionism; and nobody wanted that.

When Yasser Arafat, Abu Jihad and a few others lit the slow burning fire of the regeneration, it was the security services of Eygpt, Jordan and Lebanon which took the lead in trying to put it out.

Fast forward to today.

The incredible almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians is the reason why Zionism will never be able to close the re-opened Palestine file again unless it resorts to a final round of ethnic cleansing, to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan or wherever. In my analysis it is more likely than not that Zionism's in-Israel leaders will create a pretext to do just that at a point in the foreseeable future

What point?

When it becomes apparent even to them that with bombs and bullets and brutal repressive measures of all kinds they can't break the will of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians to continue the struggle for their rights and compel them to accept crumbs from Zionism's table.

As things are I think it is unrealistic to expect the governments of the major powers either to use the leverage they have to call and hold the Zionist state to account for its past crimes, or to intervene to prevent the crimes it will commit in a foreseeable future.

And it can be taken as read that the Arab regimes will not lift a finger to prevent a final Zionist solution to the Palestine problem. (Before Sharon sent the IDF all the way to Beirut to exterminate the PLO's leadership and destroy its infrastructure, Gulf Arab leaders met in secret, without advisers present, in order to agree a message to the Reagan administration. The message was to the effect that they would not intervene in any way when Sharon made his move. After that message was sent, one of the Arab leaders present, Oman's Sultan Qaboos, said to Arafat: "Be careful. You are going to ask for our help and it will not come." Last year I had a private conversation in London with a major royal from the Arab world. I said to him, "Nothing is going to change in the Arab world until your regimes are more frightened of their own masses than they are of offending Zionism and America". He replied, "You're right." I also said to him, "If the Zionists do resort to a final round of ethnic cleaning to close the Palestine file, Arab leaders, behind closed doors, will give thanks and celebrate." His reply was the same, "You're right.")

Question: What can the Palestinians do to help themselves?

My view is that they should wind-up (close down) the discredited Palestine National Authority (PNA), and put policy making and implementation back into the hands of the Palestine National Council (PNC), which is supposed to be (it once was) the highest and most supreme Palestinian decision-making body. To become relevant again it would have to be reconstructed and re-invigorated by elections in every place where there are Palestinians - the occupied West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza concentration camp and the diaspora.

The fact that the PNA is corrupt, impotent and discredited is reason enough for it to be put out of its misery, but there's more to it.

In their claim for justice, the Palestinians have 100% of right, legal and moral, on their side (whereas the Israelis have 99% of the might, conventional and nuclear, on their side). If this claim was properly presented and pressed by a credible Palestinian leadership, by definition a democratically elected leadership duly authorized to represent the views of all Palestinians, it would be more difficult for the governments of the major powers, the one in Washington DC especially, to go on refusing to use the leverage they have to end Israel's occupation of Arab land grabbed in the Zionist state's 1967 war of aggression. (Not self defense as Zionism asserts).

Because Israel and the major powers won't talk to Hamas (despite the fact that its leaders have signalled their willingness to live in peace with an Israel inside its pre-1967 borders), and because the Fatah-dominated PNA is so discredited (I imagine Arafat is revolving with anger in his grave), the occupied and oppressed Palestinians are effectively leaderless in the sense that they are without an institution to represent them in the corridors of power.

It follows, or so I believe, that a demand for putting policy making and implementation back into the hands of a reconstructed and re-invigorated PNC must come from the Palestinian diaspora - from Palestinian communities in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, Kuwait, Iraq, Yemen, Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, Chile, Honduras, Brazil, Columbia and Guatemala.

The question arising is the one of the headline for this article: Does the Palestinian diaspora care enough to become engaged?

I have long been of the view that the major difference between Jews and Arabs is that Jews know how to play the game of international politics and Arabs don't. The Palestinians could prove me wrong. The world, not just the occupied and oppressed Palestinians, needs them to do so.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Related posts:

• Care and Feeding of the Holocaust Elephant in the Room (spiced up by Ahmadinejad)
• Dr. Nathan Brown: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Inter-Palestinian Divide
• Palestinian Cyber Warfare for a Post Imperial America