End of the PNA-PLO?

06/13/2006

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us	Add to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000475.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Moderator @ 07:56 PM CST [Link]

Replies: 13 comments

The Palestinian body politick will remain infantilised as long as circumstances allow it to remain so. They are much like teenagers neither children nor adults, neither occupied nor autonomous. They remain in this state as long as they can avoid responsibility for the actions that arise from their limited authority.
As neither Hamas not Fatah have shown themselves capable or willing to deliver peace in the form of a state that poses no threat to its neighbours and is stable, Israel must take unilateral action.
This must entail the evacuation of the majority of settlements in the West Bank, and adjustments to the boders to provide the future Palestine with territorial compensation.
The wall / fence must be removed from its present location and be relocated along the "final" border. There should be designated crossing points and the publication of the criteria based upon agreement between Israeli and Palestinian governments. (In my opinion the old city of Jerusalem should also be divided, with protocols established for responses to acts of violence towards worshippers)
Once this unilateral evacuation has been achieved, Israel should declare the occupation ended and with it Israels' compliance with 242. However, Israel should state publically that until such times as Palestine complies with 242, then the borders remain closed.
This will undoubtedly cause hardship for the Palestinians, but as recently shown donor states are quite willing to bankroll the Palestinian government. As resources become scarcer and the last remnants of the rule of law collapse, the militant factions will take over and run fiefdoms. However they can only succeed so long as there remains a civilian population with resources sufficient for them to survive by extracting "fees".
Ultimately one of several things will happen: 1. The civil population drift away in search of a better life elsewhere. 2. The factions collapse as the resources of the civilian population are consumed and the militants opperation scannot be sustained. 3: the civil population rise up and drive the factions out, and then form their own civilian administration.
If option 3 proves to be the outcome then there is a chance for sustainable democratic Palestine next door to Israel. The rest is just chaos. Perhaps all 3 have to happen in sequence.

Posted by Rod Davies @ 06/15/2006 09:38 PM CST

"Ultimately one of several things will happen: 1. The civil population drift away in search of a better life elsewhere. 2. The factions collapse as the resources of the civilian population are consumed and the militants opperation scannot be sustained. 3: the civil population rise up and drive the factions out, and then form their own civilian administration.
If option 3 proves to be the outcome then there is a chance for sustainable democratic Palestine next door to Israel. The rest is just chaos. Perhaps all 3 have to happen in sequence."

These options seem to be two optimistic. All of them are unlikely. The Palestinians are capable of maintaing a mixure of anarchy and terrorism for years without either the organizations collapsing or the people rising against them or the people simply walking away. The people who will walk away wil be the ones most necessary to fix the situation while the remaining will continue addong fuel to the fire.

Posted by Micha @ 06/16/2006 06:27 AM CST

Micha,
I think the Palestinians capacity in the past to maintain anarchy has been dependent on obtaining foreign aid and accessing Israeli labour markets, and thus wages. The aid probably will continue, but in diminished quantities.

If Israel denies Palestinians access to Israel, its labour markets, import / export infrastructure and the opportunity to traverse Israel Gaza - West Bank, then the maintenance of the anarchy becomes much more difficult. I think that support for the Palestinians would also diminish amongst neighbouring states as criminal activity incraeses to generate funds for the Palestinians.

The only question being, has Israel got the nerve to adopt the "3 No's" in relation to Palestine?

Posted by Rod Davies @ 06/16/2006 02:19 PM CST

I think both Davies and Issarof are way too pessimistic. Both of you 100% calmness, 100% security, and 100% peace. The reality is far different. While the prisoner's document does not recognize Israel it is a smart move to break the "No partner for peace" that Israel continues to use to avoid giving land and turn the Palestinians to fins.

Does the Palestinians need to better govern themselves? Most certainly but a government of 12 or so years is not usually going to 100% stable. The U.S. held a civil war roughly 50 or 60 years after creation which cost 600,000 soldiers lives. Governments take time but frankly some don't want just to give them time.

When the Northern Irish made a peace deal a bombing in Omo happen afterwards but rather crying foul the Protestants and Catholics continued to move forward. The Israelis and Palestinians would instead sit and whine. Moving peace forward might create optimism but both sides don't seem to care. If Abbas however can find a way to the negotiating table then optimism may occur.

Both sides don't want to trust the other even if the rational for their distrust makes no sense. For the Israelis the Palestinians will make peace and destroy the state of Israel. Israel is the strongest power in the Middle East and as Walt and Mersheimer pointed out Israel much stronger than its surrounding neighbors.If Israel's strength is not enough to deter their destruction then the Palestinian lack of desire to destroy the state of Israel will be enough. Polls have shown support of a two state solution as being high and that support will most likely stay high.

On the Palestinian side the Israelis are untrustworthy. The Palestinians believe Israel will make peace to satisfy the international community and then seek to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. This theory has no support the Palestinians and Arabs-Israelis make up 50% of the whole region. Israel cannot possibly ethnically cleanse all the Arabs. Normal Israelis don't want to and not the even the U.S. can possibly support an ethnic cleansing.

Both sides need to look to what their people rather than totaly ignoring them. Both sides have shown they can democratic elections but unfortunately ignore their people for the most part after they are elected.

Posted by Butros Dahu @ 06/17/2006 07:26 PM CST

1.
"Does the Palestinians need to better govern themselves? Most certainly but a government of 12 or so years is not usually going to 100% stable. The U.S. held a civil war roughly 50 or 60 years after creation which cost 600,000 soldiers lives. Governments take time but frankly some don't want just to give them time."

The analogy is not relevant. (a) We are talking about a different time period. (2)The relevant question is what the effect of the Palestinian conduct on the ability to make peace and on the security of its neighbors. The Palestinians created a system of competing gangs with their own policy of organized violence, which affects both Israel's security and the abiility of the government to function. The most basic aspect of government is the control of the means of violence. If the Palestinians cannot do that to a reasonable degree than their ability to sign deals is compromised. (3) This is true of the US in the 18th and 19th century as well. There would be no Us if they could not form a functioning government (in the standards of the time). After its foundation it did deal and crush internal challanges to its monopoly of power. (4) The civil war is hardly relevant since it was not the result of a longtime ability of the federal government to excersize its autority, but actually a rather quick response to a challenge by the southern states. History would have been different had Lincoln negotiated a Hudna with the Southern States.

2.
"When the Northern Irish made a peace deal a bombing in Omo happen afterwards"

Again irrelevant. This attack was done by a sombody which was recognized by both sides as a small fringe group without major support. Although some Israelis were wililng to view the Hamas in the same way during the Oslo years, today it is certainly not the truth. All the factions in the occupied territrories have recognized political status and are tolerated, supported or even are part of the Palestinian government. It should also be added that a great cause of contention in Northen Ireland was the disarmament of the organizations. In the occupied territories it is not even an option.

3.
"Moving peace forward might create optimism but both sides don't seem to care. If Abbas however can find a way to the negotiating table then optimism may occur." This is the Abbas approach: things wil get better with regard to the violence and anarchy, maybe, only after negotiations. I addressed that issue in the responses to the next subject, and I would like to understand if Ami is rejecting it completely. I'm not sure. But, at least have the honesty to understand that what is asked of Israel is to negotiate with Abbas while terrorism conyinues, anarchy and corruption continue, hatemongering continues, the government is controled by Hamas, and Abbas is unable to commit to anythingbeforehand, and then hope for the best. It may be the right option for Israel. It may be the only way to get out of the deadlock. But it is not simple. Two Israeli peace negotiating were crushed for negotiating while terrorism continued.

4.
"Both sides don't want to trust the other even if the rational for their distrust makes no sense."

The distrust of both sides makes perfect sense. The Israelis continued building settlementts during the Oslo negotiations; the Palestinians continues building, arming, inciting, and using terrorist organizations (as well as becoming a haven of crime and corruption).

5.
"Israel is the strongest power in the Middle East and as Walt and Mersheimer pointed out Israel much stronger than its surrounding neighbors.If Israel's strength is not enough to deter their destruction then the Palestinian lack of desire to destroy the state of Israel will be enough."

Obviously Israel's strength is insufficient to stop Palestinian suicide bombers and kassam missiles on its towns. And ultimately that is the correct measure of its strength.
The president of Iran spoke about destroying Israel. This view is not his alone, and has followers in the occupied territories and the rest of the middle east, including with the Palestinian ruling party. Furthermore, those Arabs who do not wish to destroy Israel do so because of Israel's military strength. This is sad but true.

6.
"On the Palestinian side the Israelis are untrustworthy. The Palestinians believe Israel will make peace to satisfy the international community and then seek to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. This theory has no support the Palestinians and Arabs-Israelis make up 50% of the whole region. Israel cannot possibly ethnically cleanse all the Arabs. Normal Israelis don't want to and not the even the U.S. can possibly support an ethnic cleansing."

Like I said, Israel has good reason to distrust Israel. Unfortunatly they prefer completley fictitious reasons. I guess the term 'ethnic leansing' is to good not to use even if it does not apply to the acrual conflict.

7.
"Both sides need to look to what their people rather than totaly ignoring them. Both sides have shown they can democratic elections but unfortunately ignore their people for the most part after they are elected."

The Israeli people have elected a government that supports a unilateral withdrawl policy, not peace. The Palestinians voted for a government that opposed peace with Israel. The people of spoken. The support for peace in the polls, means that hey want peace. Their votes mean that they are unwililng to act to acheive it, and/or don't believe it can be acheived.

8.
"The Israelis and Palestinians would instead sit and whine."
The Palestinians sit, whine, and send suicide bombers and kassams, which have no actual purpose other than make them feel good.
The Israelis whine, but they do not sit. They build fences, they strike back, they build roadblocks, they build settlements. But They also have public discussions, demonstrations, changes in policy, and withdrawl from Gaza.

9.
Rod, I doubt any attempt to force the Palestinians by siege ti crate a better government will work. First, the extremist violent factions wil strengthen. Then Israel will look bad. Then the world will blink. And in no stage will the Palestinian people consider to actually improve their act but rather will stick more to their ways.

Posted by Micha @ 06/19/2006 03:21 AM CST

Dear Micha,
Certainly Israel would have to manage its media image extremely well were it to unilaterally withdraw and close the borders. However, I sense that the outside world is progressively becoming bored with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel would have to use the UN and other fora very effectively to protest any attacks coming from the Palestinian state. At present Israel allows PNA-PLO-Hamas to avoid any real responsibility for actions against Israel, and claim justification under the umbrella of "legitimate resistance against an occupier". Once Israel had withdrawn this fiction would no longer sustainable.
I agree with you that the armed factions would seek to fight it out over control. But there is a limit to this bounded by their capacity to sustain the conflict.
The single message that Israel needs to get over is "We want a negotiated peace, but there is no effective Palestinian leadership to negotiate with."

Posted by Rod Davies @ 06/19/2006 12:05 PM CST

You have both set out the pitfalls of any policy very well. Unfortunately, Israel cannot stay where it is. The occupation is a dead end. Unilateralism is opposed by Arab states in fact because they are scared of a Palestinian state. I don't blame them. Israeli standing and image are deteriorating. If Israel doesn't do something to disociate itself from the territories, it will cease to be a Jewish state eventually, one way or another - support for "right of return" as well as one state solutions is increasing.

The world will not become bored with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because the Palestinians and Islamist extremists will make sure to keep it interesting. Every bomb that goes off in Europe or the US will be blamed on "the occupation."

Unfortunately, Israeli government is not willing or able politically to make the kind of offer that USA and EU at least might accept as fair - eg the Geneva Accord or something similar. Olmert's plan, one suspects, would actually give Palestinians much less than 90% of the West Bank, because Israel would retain control of the Jordan Valley. No Palestinian leader can accept that, and it would not put an end to terrorism. Terror in any case would not end without an agreed solution to the refugee problem.

Posted by Moderator @ 06/20/2006 01:03 AM CST

If the Palestinians cannot stop terrorism and end the anarchy until negotiations end in full withdrawl, and if an Israeli government is not going to be able to negotiate so long as terrorism continues, than it is a double deadlock unless somebody changes the situation.

As it is the alternatives seem to be either the abu-Mazan approach, starting negotiating and hoping for the best, or, the Olmert approach, partial withdrawl and hoping for the best. Which is the better option?

Posted by Micha @ 06/21/2006 01:58 AM CST

Micha,
I think that Israel needs to look at its broader interests and determine whether by withdrawing and in large part complying with Pt 1 of UNSCR 242 it can obtain benefits for the nation as a whole. There is little evidence that either Fatah or Hamas are able to deliver a cessation in military activity, as they exhibit very little control on the various armed factions and they lack the will at present to assert their authority.
In my opinion for Israel to remain in occupation of the West Bank means remaining at the epicentre of a maelstrom of purposeless violence, to the benefit of neither Israelis nor Palestinians. If the Palestinians are unable to make the dramatic step away from this cycle of violence, then Israel must do so unilaterally.
If Israel is to act unilaterally it must ensure that the Palestinian people and the international community understand the terms under which Israel is withdrawing and the potential opportunities that Palestine could obtain if it sorts itself out and desists from war. Israel must also make clear what the alternatives are.
I hope that this would become the catalyst for an open debate amongst Palestinians about the future they desire collectively for their state.
I fear that they will foolishly interpret Israeli withdrawls as validation for their struggle against Zionism, and therefore misguidedly seek to prolong it in the hope that they recover all their "lost" territory and thereby destroy Israel.

Posted by Rod Davies @ 06/21/2006 10:30 AM CST

Rod, The problem is that any unilateral withdrawl terms contemplated by the current Israeli government leave in Israel's hands enough occupation to keep the Palestinians in a state of conflict with us. The Israel government is not considering the kind or terms you propose, and since the Palestinians are unable to stop fighting and too stupid to make the most of this limited offer. further unilateral withdrawl means continued war, with little chance that the Palestinians will stop or that the Israelis will consider to offer more.

The situation needs to be altered.

Posted by Micha @ 06/21/2006 04:13 PM CST

Micha

You oversimplify the entire conflict to give it an Israeli bias:

1.The analogy is not relevant. (a) We are talking about a different time period. (2)The relevant question is what the effect of the Palestinian conduct on the ability to make peace and on the security of its neighbors. The Palestinians created a system of competing gangs with their own policy of organized violence, which affects both Israel's security and the abiility of the government to function. The most basic aspect of government is the control of the means of violence. If the Palestinians cannot do that to a reasonable degree than their ability to sign deals is compromised. (3) This is true of the US in the 18th and 19th century as well. There would be no Us if they could not form a functioning government (in the standards of the time). After its foundation it did deal and crush internal challanges to its monopoly of power. (4) The civil war is hardly relevant since it was not the result of a longtime ability of the federal government to excersize its autority, but actually a rather quick response to a challenge by the southern states. History would have been different had Lincoln negotiated a Hudna with the Southern States.

How is it not relevant? The U.S. in its first years had a huge debt and fights between neighboring states. They fought over slavery, expansion, taxes, and so on. The U.S. certainly was not stable just like the Palestinians.

2. Again irrelevant. This attack was done by a sombody which was recognized by both sides as a small fringe group without major support. Although some Israelis were wililng to view the Hamas in the same way during the Oslo years, today it is certainly not the truth. All the factions in the occupied territrories have recognized political status and are tolerated, supported or even are part of the Palestinian government. It should also be added that a great cause of contention in Northen Ireland was the disarmament of the organizations. In the occupied territories it is not even an option.

The attack could have decimated the Northern Ireland eace proccess but it didn't because were willing to push forward neither the Palestinians or Israelis are willing to do that. The IRA is also tolarated by the Catholics so yes there is similarity between the conflicts.

3.This is the Abbas approach: things wil get better with regard to the violence and anarchy, maybe, only after negotiations. I addressed that issue in the responses to the next subject, and I would like to understand if Ami is rejecting it completely. I'm not sure. But, at least have the honesty to understand that what is asked of Israel is to negotiate with Abbas while terrorism conyinues, anarchy and corruption continue, hatemongering continues, the government is controled by Hamas, and Abbas is unable to commit to anythingbeforehand, and then hope for the best. It may be the right option for Israel. It may be the only way to get out of the deadlock. But it is not simple. Two Israeli peace negotiating were crushed for negotiating while terrorism continued.

This is a mere excuse. People can move forward because without progress the public doesn't see hope. This argument is used as a means to delay the proccess or never allow it to happen. Israel occupies the land and yet do not set the rule of law the Israelis have no desire to end the anarchy so not negotiating a peace deal while continuing to occupy make no sense. If the Israelis had done nothing to end the anarchy then they shouldn't continue to occupy.

4.The distrust of both sides makes perfect sense. The Israelis continued building settlementts during the Oslo negotiations; the Palestinians continues building, arming, inciting, and using terrorist organizations (as well as becoming a haven of crime and corruption).

That argument isn't very relevent. Peace agreements can solve issues and help set the rules. Sitting down and pointing figers does not.

5.Obviously Israel's strength is insufficient to stop Palestinian suicide bombers and kassam missiles on its towns. And ultimately that is the correct measure of its strength.
The president of Iran spoke about destroying Israel. This view is not his alone, and has followers in the occupied territories and the rest of the middle east, including with the Palestinian ruling party. Furthermore, those Arabs who do not wish to destroy Israel do so because of Israel's military strength. This is sad but true.

Your implying the Arabs aren't sincere but you provide no proof to this veiw. You also forgot the rest of my quote:
"Polls have shown support of a two state solution as being high and that support will most likely stay high."

Poles have been done and have shown this. Having followers in the territories and having the majority of the people supporters following you are two different things. The majority of Palestinians don't want to destroy Israel and polls have shown this. What the Iranian president says doesn't dictate what the Palestinians desire. For the most part that problem is seperate from the Palestinian one with the exception of Islamic Jihad.

Posted by Butros Dahu @ 06/22/2006 01:22 AM CST

"You oversimplify the entire conflict to give it an Israeli bias"

Maybe I have abias, but I expect so do you. However I do not oversimplify, but the opposite. I try to describe the actual complicated situation with all the fear and distrust on both sides. I'm focusing more on the Israeli because in this context it seems more necessary to explain the concerns of Israelis than Palestinians. I believe that Israelis should overcome these issues, but I don't believe thy should be ignored or treated like excuses. For peace to be reached it is necessary to address the fears, concerns and motivations of both sides.

"How is it not relevant? The U.S. in its first years had a huge debt and fights between neighboring states. They fought over slavery, expansion, taxes, and so on. The U.S. certainly was not stable just like the Palestinians."

The example of the American civil war shows the opposite of what you are trying to proove. It is an example of the government asserting its authority at all costs against states that wanted to have their own policy on slavery. The minute the guns of the south were turned against the federal army, the war started. In the occupied territories there are many armies with their own policies. Lincoln said: a house divide against itself cannot stand. However there are other examples in US history that might be more useful for your point. In anty case, the issue is whether the Palestinian can sign an agreement and stand by it and whether the anarchy is a threat to Israel.

"IRA is also tolarated by the Catholics so yes there is similarity between the conflicts."
The Omagh attack was done by a group known as the Real IRA that was not tolerated (look in wikipedia, quite interesting). Had the Provisional IRA continued to commit terrorist attacks while negotiating peace talk would have stopped. They were stalled several times because of the issue of disarmament of the IRA. Furthermore, Israelis did not really give up on the peace process while the Hamas and Jihad were presented to them, like the Real IRA, as a fringe group. They only gave up after the second intifada started and it seemed to them that all the groups and Palestinian leadership were fighting together. Many Israelis came to believe, quite reasonably, that the Hamas was tolerated by the Palestinian government even before, unlike the Real IRA. However, you do have one point. The peace in Northern Ireland worked because a clear majority supported peace and understood exactly what it means, and would not tolerate attempts to destroy the peace. This was not the case with the Israelis or Palestinians.
I did not say there were no similarities between the conflicts, but there are also major differences. The attitude toward the Real IRA is one of them.

"This is a mere excuse. People can move forward because without progress the public doesn't see hope. This argument is used as a means to delay the proccess or never allow it to happen."
If so than the occupation is also an excuse. But it is not. The reality on the ground, occupation, oppression, terrorism, anarchy, causes Israelis or Palestinians to loose faith in peace.

"Israel occupies the land and yet do not set the rule of law the Israelis have no desire to end the anarchy so not negotiating a peace deal while continuing to occupy make no sense. If the Israelis had done nothing to end the anarchy then they shouldn't continue to occupy."
I hope you do not suggest Israel invade Gaza and the parts of the west bank it no longer controls in order to stop the anarchy. The anarchy is in areas controled by the Palestinians, and they are the result of the way the Palestinians have mannaged their Authority since it was founded. The Oslo accords were sold to the Israelis as a method to allow the Palestinians to run there own affairs, instead of by Israeli control. Unfortunatly since then the Palestinian authority formed multiple competing security organizations, armed civilian organizations, and tolerated the armed forces of other organizations. This is one of the reasons why Israelis stopped believing in peace.

"Peace agreements can solve issues and help set the rules.
Peace agreements cannot be acheived without trust and good will. There are none on either side.

"Sitting down and pointing figers does not."
True. The fact that that is what the Israelis and Palestinans are doinf shows that they do not trust each other or have the good will to try to improve things.

"Your implying the Arabs aren't sincere but you provide no proof to this veiw. You also forgot the rest of my quote:
"Polls have shown support of a two state solution as being high and that support will most likely stay high.""
You ignored part of my quote so we're even. What I say is that the Arabs agreed to make peace with Israel when they realized that they cannot defeat it in war. (The Israelis in turn understood that they cannot occupy Sinai, Lebanon, and Gaza). This is well known and admitted by them. Unfortunatly it also means that if Israel was to stop being strong there is a good chance that there willingness to destroy it wil return. After all, even after peace Israel is pretty much deligitimized by Arab governments.

Polls are nice. But who control what he Palestinians do are not the polls but the Hamas, Jihad and Fatah. Two of these groups want to destroy Israel, while the third is also attacking it. Furthermore there is the issue of the right of return. Demanding it without compromise means an end to Israel. But the Palestinians are unable to speak of any compromise until peace is reached on all other issues, if at all. This means that as of yet the Palestinians have not removed the elimination of Israel off the table. Israeli concern is understandable. If the Palestinians really don't want to destroy Israel they should show it in action not only in polls. Israelis have showed by their actions that they support withdrawl, even in not full withdrawl unfortunatly. The only Palestinian actions as of yet wrre the electionof Hamas, shooting kassams into Israel from Gaza, fighting among themselves, and anti-Israeli propaganda. This is why it is hard to get Israelis to consider peace.

I want to convince Israelis to support peace, but the reality I would be working in was not northern Ireland or 19th century America, it is here and now, whith all the problems involved.

Posted by Micha @ 06/24/2006 01:57 AM CST

This week's haaretz had several pieces about coordinated withdrawl as part of the Road Map. It might be a good things, if the Hamas government is included in the equation.

This can enable Israel to only partially withdraw on favorable terms without dealing now with its unwilingness to fully withdraw. The Hamas can get recognition and some quiet to govern for the price of a temporary ceasefire. And Abbas can avoid he threat of Israel trying to make the temporary permanent with international guarentees that full negotiations will follow, and will get the benefits of withdrawl. At worst it will not be worst than any of the other ideas, and terrorism will continue. At worse it will delay war for a few years. What is required from Israel is to recognize and negotiate a ceasefire with the Hamas, and also to prepare for ways to deal with terrorism after withdrawl.

Posted by Micha @ 06/24/2006 02:12 AM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.