David Singer: PLO-Hamas Referendum Could Boost Trump Peace Plan

Have you seen this video (English subtitles) from Israelly Cool?  If not, have a look and spread its fame.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=RRpDGA_ZAtM

Meanwhile, here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

There is little hope that reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah will end a decade of bitter internecine feuding which has seen a parallel entrenchment of territorial divisions between them in Gaza and the West Bank.

Gazan and West Bank Arab populations will continue to be the victims of this ongoing power play as both groups remain bitterly opposed to recognising Israel as the Jewish National Home.

Elections have not been held since January 2006 when Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament trouncing the governing Fatah party.

Since then, conflict between Hamas and Fatah has seen any prospect of the peaceful creation of a second Arab State – in addition to Jordan – in the territory encompassed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – consigned to the diplomatic scrapheap.

Now it seems that Hamas and Fatah are seeking yet again to come to some form of reconciliation  – which will only be about preserving their own organisations and retaining their current powers and privileges and have nothing to do with giving their long-suffering populations any say in their own future.

Clearly whatever game of musical chairs they intend to play – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made Israel’s position very clear – reportedly stating that as part of any reconciliation Hamas must:

1. recognise Israel

2. dismantle Hamas’s military wing and

3. Break off ties with Iran.

Any hope of these conditions being met is a pipe dream. Netanyahu also declared:

“We expect everyone who talks about a peace process to recognize the State of Israel and, of course, the Jewish state. We cannot accept fake reconciliation on the Palestinian side that comes at the expense of our existence.”

Again this is simply not going to happen.

Whatever window dressing occurs between Hamas and Fatah will therefore be of no consequence in resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict or in influencing President Trump to believe that such steps are capable of contributing to the President successfully brokering an end to that 100 years old conflict.

The absence of elections for eleven years has created a void that has had disastrous consequences for the Gazan and West Bank Arab populations – impacting the lives of every single Gazan and West Bank Arab.

The likelihood of free and fair elections continues to be a distant dream.

PLO leader Yasser Arafat – perhaps in an unguarded moment – made the following promise back in May 1983 when interviewed in Middle East Review:

“When the occupied territories are liberated, we will move towards a referendum that will set up constitutionally a framework for special relations between Jordan and liberated Palestine.”

That referendum has failed to materialise despite the fact that since 2007:

1. Hamas has controlled 100% of Gaza and its entire population

2. The PLO – of which Fatah is the major member – has controlled 40% of the West Bank within which 95% of the total West Bank Arab population currently reside.

Arafat’s referendum proposal should be implemented – if elections are once again denied.
Holding this referendum would indicate a willingness by both Hamas and Fatah to work towards a peaceful resolution of the Jewish-Arab conflict - working arm in arm with Jordan – rather than continuing their belligerent confrontation with Israel – both militarily and diplomatically – that has marked the last 10 years.

Such a referendum would send a clear signal to President Trump that there could indeed be some possible light at the end of the Gazan terrorist-tunnels – that a framework involving Jordan represents the best possible way forward out of the current impasse.

Seeing the referendum realised remains the challenge for Trump to pursue.

David Singer: The PLO & Hamas Threaten Split Over Islamic State

Daphne notes: In common with numerous pro-Israel bloggers, I have had no hesitation in signing the open condemnation of the ghastly murder and evil killers of young Mohammed Abu Khdeir, which appears on the Elder of Ziyon website.  As Elder writes: "I invite any blogger, columnist or pundit to sign on to this letter in the comments section (please include the URL of your blog/column) so I can add to the signature list. Bloggers are also encouraged to reproduce this letter on their own blogs."

 ***

And now, titled "Palestine – PLO And Hamas Threaten Split Over Islamic State", here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

Writes David Singer:

The declaration of the Islamic State on the first day of the holy fasting month of Ramadan threatens once again to embroil the recently reconciled PLO and Hamas in renewed and violent confrontation after just ending their seven-year internecine feud – destroying any hope of ever achieving a Palestinian Arab State between Jordan and Israel.

The Islamic State is a self styled Caliphate – a system of rule that ended in 1924 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The statement declaring its establishment reads:

“Here the flag of the Islamic State … rises and flutters. Its shade covers land from Aleppo [Syria] and Diyala [Iraq]. The infidels are disgraced. The Sunnis are masters and are esteemed. The people of heresy are humiliated. The Sharia penalties are implemented, all of them. The front lines are defended, crosses and graves demolished. Governors and judges have been appointed, a tax has been enforced and courts will resolve disputes and complaints.”

The Islamic State already controls large swathes of northern Iraq after a sustained assault which began with the overthrow of Iraqi control of the country’s second largest city of Mosul, near the Syrian border, on June 9.

Over the last two years it has established a strong presence in parts of Syria, controlling key oil fields in eastern Syria in the area bordering Iraq, levying taxes and other penalties and implementing strict Sharia law on besieged communities.

At its head as Caliph – the self-proclaimed successor to the Prophet Mohammed – is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whose spokesman has made his intentions clear:

“The time has come for those generations that were drowning in oceans of disgrace, being nursed on the milk of humiliation, and being ruled by the vilest of all people, after their long slumber in the darkness of neglect — the time has come for them to rise”

Will Hamas rise and throw its weight behind this new Caliph – given the following provisions of Article 11 of the Hamas Charter:

"... Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators."

Hamas has reserved the right to resist the temptation to blindly pledge its allegiance to this newly declared Caliph and the Islamic State under article 23 of the Hamas Charter: 

"The Hamas views the other Islamic movements with respect and appreciation. Even when it differs from them in one aspect or another or on one concept or another, it agrees with them in other aspects and concepts. It reads those movements as included in the framework of striving [for the sake of Allah], as long as they hold sound intentions and abide by their devotion to Allah, and as along as their conduct remains within the perimeter of the Islamic circle."

The PLO also needs to reassess its recently established symbiotic relationship with Hamas given that there appears to be far more common ground in the stated aims and objectives of Hamas and the Islamic State than exists between Hamas and the PLO.

This view is reinforced by Article 27 of the Hamas Charter: 

"Under the influence of the circumstances which surrounded the founding of the PLO, and the ideological invasion which has swept the Arab world since the rout of the Crusades, and which has been reinforced by Orientalism and the Christian Mission, the PLO has adopted the idea of a Secular State, and so we think of it. Secular thought is diametrically opposed to religious thought. Thought is the basis for positions, for modes of conduct and for resolutions. Therefore, in spite of our appreciation for the PLO and its possible transformation in the future, and despite the fact that we do not denigrate its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we cannot substitute it for the Islamic nature of Palestine by adopting secular thought."

Hamas and the PLO have always been perfectly up front and transparent in their declared aims and objectives. The problem has always been the inability of the West to believe them.

Maybe they now will.

God help them if they don't.

Mark Regev on Bringing Back The Boys (video)

In this exclusive interview a few days ago, Bibi Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev talks of the Israeli government's certainty that Hamas is behind the kidnapping of the three missing Israeli teenagers, what needs to be done to bring the boys home, why Mahmoud Abbas's unity deal with Hamas is unconscionable, and what Israel expects from the international community.

Meanwhile, the British-based Islam Channel's Current Affairs show has presented a trio of talking heads to bash Israel's response to the current kidnapping crisis: three hardened anti-Israel warriors, namely freelance writer Ben White (his latest kick at the UK "Israel lobby" and Christian Zionists has just been posted, here), lawyer Toby Carman, and ex-MP Martin Linton (remember that "tentacles of Israel" speech of his a few years ago?).

The discussion, in the unlikely event that you should you care to watch it, follows some ten minutes of background footage.

 The studio anchor, John Rees, is described thus in his Wikipedia entry:

'Elected a member of the National Executive of the National Union of Students in the early 1980s, Rees is a former leading member of the Socialist Workers Party, and was for many years on its Central Committee. He was editor of the quarterly journal International Socialism for ten years and the organiser of the SWP's annual Marxism festival in 1982 and 1983 and again between 1992 and 2002.

A co-founder and a current national officer for the Stop the War Coalition, he has been a central organiser of all its marches including that of 15 February 2003. According to Rees: "Socialists should unconditionally stand with the oppressed against the oppressor, even if the people who run the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute minorities, like Saddam Hussein." Rees is also vice president (Europe) of the Cairo Conference.

He was top of Respect – The Unity Coalition list in the West Midlands region for the 2004 European Election, and the Respect candidate for the Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election. He also stood for Respect in the 2006 local elections in the Bethnal Green South ward of Tower Hamlets, East London where he came second to Labour. Rees was controversially not selected by the SWP Central Committee to be on the slate for re-election and did not stand independently at the January 2009 conference. Shortly after his partner Lindsey German [convenor of Stop The War Coalition] resigned from the SWP in 2010, Rees and 41 other members followed disenchanted with the party's direction, internal regime and approach to united fronts (18 others who had resigned in weeks prior also supported the resignations)....'

Yet another reminder of the distinctly curious alliance that exists these days between Islam and the hard Left.

Always A Peace Process, Never A Peace

'Palestinians say that for Muslims, Palestinian land reaches "from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea" – that is, over all of what is now Israel. In their view, Tel Aviv is illegally occupied territory just as much as any of the settlements in the West Bank. This view is based on the Muslim doctrine, deeply rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, called "waqf" (religious endowment). Any territory once under the control of Muslims, must forever be controlled by Muslims.  According to Islamic law, "If a person makes something waqf, it ceases to be his property and neither he nor anybody else can gift or sell it to any other person', write Harold Rhode and Joseph Raskas this week in a footnoted article:

'.... Today, any Palestinian Muslim leader who would sign a final peace agreement recognizing as Jewish any part of what had once been part of the Muslim World would be violating a core tenet of Islam... And any Palestinian leader who agreed to surrender land held in trust by the Muslim waqf would not only be humiliated, but very likely assassinated.

Abbas's predecessor, Yasser Arafat, faced this dilemma at Camp David in 2000, when Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, offered Arafat all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with the exception of what was under the Temple Mount. Arafat, knowing that he could never accept such an agreement, rejected Barak's offer. He then asserted that, "There never was a Jewish Temple there," and is reputed to have said, "Do you want see me up there having tea with Sadat?" – a reference to the assassination by Islamists of Egypt's President Anwar Sadat, who had signed a peace treaty with Israel.

[John] Kerry, [Martin] Indyk and their staff, even with the best intentions, seem unaware that Muslims cannot ever, under any conditions, cede territory regarded as rightfully belonging to Muslims – or, more aptly, to Allah – to non-Muslims. 

So even with Kerry's and Indyk's – or anyone's – best efforts, any attempt to coax Abbas into signing a permanent agreement that would undermine this Muslim requirement is futile....

Given that Islam cannot accept a Jewish state, the Palestinians win peace talks by "not losing." While Israeli leaders seek peace, Palestinian leaders seek an endless peace process. Abbas simply needs to find a way to draw out the negotiations as long as possible, without ever coming to a final agreement....

[A]ny Muslim leader who would permanently hand over Muslim territory to non-Muslims – especially to Jews – would be subject to public humiliation and almost certain assassination. Far better to let Abbas suffer the consequences rather than they, and meanwhile absolve themselves from any shame or blame in the process.

Abbas's other out seems to have been embracing his mortal Palestinian enemy, Hamas. Abbas was doubtlessly aware that Hamas would also never consent to the conditions previously imposed on it by the Middle East Quartet: rejecting violence, recognizing Israel and accepting previous accords. Hamas could be counted on never to accept any treaty with Israel, as evidenced by the Hamas charter, which repeatedly calls not only for the destruction of Israel, but also of the Jews.

This rapprochement with Hamas, however, not only enables Abbas to continue receiving funds from the U.S. and Europe, but later to be able to blame Hamas for any subsequent failure of the talks. Abbas now does not have to choose between either possible death or certain dishonor in the eyes of his fellow Palestinians. Hamas therefore provides the perfect cover Abbas needs not to sign any permanent peace agreement that Kerry & Co. still seem so determined to deliver....'

Read the entire article here and see also here

Meanwhile, talking of financial aid, NGO Monitor has a detailed report here (hat tip: M.W.) titled "Australian Funding in the West Bank and Gaza" that reveals, to quote part of its own summary,

"Some Australian aid funding goes to political advocacy NGOs that are involved in BDS and for activities that are contrary to the peace process"

and which observes:

'Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said in 2014: “Under the Abbott Government aid spending will be tied to measurable outcomes. Rigorous benchmarks will be introduced to ensure integrity in the Australian aid program and to give Australian taxpayers greater confidence in its effectiveness.”

 In light of this statement, NGO Monitor recommends that the Australian government set more rigorous benchmarks in its indirect funding of NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza.

 Australia must more closely investigate operations and partnerships of intermediary organizations to ensure that taxpayer funds are used to further Australian national interests.

 .... NGO Monitor encourages Australia to end funding to organizations that demonize Israel and encourage BDS.'

Australia's tough new federal Budget, announced today by Treasurer Joe Hockey, entails cuts to foreign aid, as glimpsed in this synopsis:

'Foreign aid frozen at current levels for two years, helping save $7.6 billion over five year; International commitment to spend 0.5 per cent of gross national income on foreign aid abandoned; $400 million saved over four years by folding the former AusAID into the Foreign Affairs  Department'

 Let's hope that the activities identified by NGO Monitor are the first to feel the pinch.

Obama Should Cast Abbas into the Abyss, Argues David Singer

Titled "Palestine – Obama Betrayal Demands Abbas Boycott", this is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The inevitable collapse of the "two-state solution " has seen last week's headline grabbers and attention seekers turned from roosters into feather dusters – their credibility reputation and political judgement torn to shreds

Mahmoud Abbas – unelected PLO Chairman and unconstitutional President of

1. The non- existent "Palestinian Authority"

2. The artificially invented "Palestinian people" and

3. The unilaterally declared "state of Palestine"

 –  has confounded world leaders by rushing into the welcoming arms of the terrorist organisation Hamas, leaving his personal credibility and reputation indelibly and irreparably stained .

Abbas has been miraculously transformed from being Obama's buddy, Livni and Indyk's photo opportunity, Kerry's dinner guest and Peres's "partner for peace "within just one week.

He now identifies with and openly espouses the following "humanitarian" Hamas principles adopted by the terrorist group – whom he assures people he will kiss and make up with in just four weeks time:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?"

Hello – Is anyone listening? Should President Obama and Kerry be lining up to greet this man with this mindset who recognises no American President, or should this duped American President boycott and give Abbas the cold shoulder?

What about those nothing United Nations countries processing hypocritical requests for accession to international treaties rejected by Abbas for the last 50 years – whilst fawning United Nations Human rights organisations implore this serial destroyer of human rights to take Israel to the International Court of Justice knowing full well his publicly expressed desire to inflict on 8.2 million Arabs and Jews what his Hamas comrades have been doing to millions of Syrians for the last three years?

Will Abbas now denounce his new found Hamas Islamist comrades-in-arms in Gaza for this reprehensible incident reported by Reuters in May 2010: 

"Masked gunmen attacked a U.N.-run summer camp for children on Sunday after militants in the Gaza Strip accused the United Nations of promoting immorality in the religiously conservative enclave controlled by Hamas Islamists.

About 20 men, some carrying assault rifles, tore up large plastic tents and burned storage facilities at the site, where tens of thousands of children are due to attend camp sessions, said Ibrahim Elewa, a private guard who was on duty when they struck.

Two days earlier, a previously unknown militant group, "The Free of the Homeland," issued a statement criticizing the camp's organizer, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), for "teaching schoolgirls fitness, dancing and immorality." 

Is Obama comfortable hosting this Trojan Horse in the White House – when he knows Abbas also endorses these Jew-hating views: 

"For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there."

"You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it."

Jeff Blankfort concludes his personal analysis of Obama's next White House visitor :

"By any definition one chooses, Abbas is a traitor, a collaborator with the enemy"

Chief failed US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Martin Indyk, has pathetically attempted to explain Abbas's aberrant behaviour:

"Abbas has been in search of a legacy, in bad health and old age – and sought reconciliation with Hamas for this purpose."

The White House or the mad house? You choose.

Abeyant Abbas

As David Gerstman observes on the Legal Insurrection blog here, Fatah's recent reconciliation with Hamas has excited relatively little media comment, and, moreover,

"The position of the EU endorsing the Fatah-Hamas unity agreement, as expressed by [Catherine] Ashton’s office, isn’t just illogical, it violates the principles the EU once claimed were necessary for peace.

Of course there’s a reason for the silence in the face of this Palestinian rejection of peace....

This is the reality that the peace processors refuse to accept. Since 1993 the Palestinians have made no significant, lasting concessions to Israel. (And the ones that they made were violated repeatedly.) If this is true they’ve been spinning their wheels for the past twenty years or more. It’s much easier to blame Israel that to re-examine their own assumptions. Israel can always be persuaded or pressured to make some concession to keep the illusion of a process going. So the charade continues."

Now, it's not often I find a praiseworthy article in the leftwing and frequently downright poisonous (to its country's own interests) Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, but (hat tip David Gerstman's post citing Professor William Jacobson here) columnist Avi Shavit has perceptive points to make about Mahmoud Abbas.

Shavit's article, recounting the milestone moments since 1997 when Abbas appeared to have
"overcome the ghosts of the past and the ideas of the past, and was willing to build a joint Israeli-Palestinian future, based on coexistence," concludes that such appearances, and the hopes they raised among Israelis, are chimeric:

"....In early 1997, Yossi Beilin decided to trust me, and show me the document that proved that peace was within reach. The then-prominent and creative politician from the Labor movement opened up a safe, took out a stack of printed pages, and laid them down on the table like a player with a winning poker hand.

Rumors were rife about the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement, but only a few had the opportunity to see the document with their own eyes or hold it in their hands. I was one of those few. With mouth agape I read the comprehensive outline for peace that had been formulated 18 months earlier by two brilliant champions of peace — one, Israeli, and one, Palestinian. The document left nothing to chance: Mahmoud Abbas is ready to sign a permanent agreement.....

If we could only get out from under the Likud’s thumb, and get Benjamin Netanyahu out of office, he will join us, hand in hand, walking toward the two-state solution. Abbas is a serious partner for true peace, the one with whom we can make a historic breakthrough toward reconciliation.

We understood. We did what was necessary. In 1999, we ousted Likud and Netanyahu. In 2000, we went to the peace summit at Camp David. Whoops, surprise: Abbas didn’t bring the Beilin-Abu Mazen plan to Camp David, or any other draft of a peace proposal. The opposite was true: He was one of the staunchest objectors, and his demand for the right of return prevented any progress.

But don’t believe we’d give up so quickly. During the fall of 2003, as the Geneva Accord was being formulated, it was clear to us that there were no more excuses, and that now, Abbas would sign the new peace agreement and adopt its principles. Whoops, surprise: Abu Mazen sent Yasser Abed Rabbo (a former Palestinian Authority minister) instead, while he stayed in his comfy Ramallah office. No signature, no accord.

But people as steadfast as us don’t give up on our dreams. So in 2008 we got behind Ehud Olmert, and the marathon talks he held with Abbas, and the offer that couldn’t be refused. Whoops, surprise: Abu Mazen didn’t actually refuse, he just disappeared. He didn’t say yes, he didn’t say no, he just vanished without a trace.

....In the summer of 2009, we even supported Netanyahu, when he made overtures to Abbas with his Bar-Ilan speech, and the settlement freeze. Whoops, surprise: the sophisticated objector didn’t blink, or trip up. He simple refused to dance the tango of peace with the right-wing Israeli leader.

Have we opened our eyes? Of course not. Again, we blamed Netanyahu and Likud, and believed that in 2014, Abu Mazen wouldn’t dare to say no, not to John Kerry. Whoops, surprise: In his own sophisticated, polite way, Abbas has said no in recent months to both Kerry and Barack Obama. Again, the Palestinian president’s position is clear and consistent: The Palestinians must not be required to make concessions. It’s a complicated game – squeezing more and more compromises out of the Israelis, without the Palestinians granting a single real, compromise of their own.

Take heed: Twenty years of fruitless talks have led to nothing. There is no document that contains any real Palestinian concession with Abbas’ signature. None. There never was, and there never will be...."

 Like Beilin, he (i.e. Shavit) himself has been taught that lesson through repeated experience:

"But many others haven’t learned a thing. They’re still allowing Abbas to make fools of them, as they wait for the Palestinian Godot, who will never show up."

Indeed, regarding his trickiness it's worth remembering such statement's of Abbas's as these (hat tip: B.C.).

First, in defending his “recognition” of Israel on TV network Al-Arabiya in October 2006, he explained that it was more a practical reality than a meaningful political position, citing as an example the need for the Palestinian Authority to procure $500 million from Israel: “The Palestinian finance minister has to come to an agreement with the Israeli finance minister about the transfer of the money. So how can he make an agreement with him if [the PA finance minister] does not recognize him? So I do not demand of Hamas nor any other to recognise Israel. But from the government that works with Israelis in day to day life, yes.” (See here)

Second, defending his “recognition” of Israel on TV network Al-Arabiya in October 2006, he [Abbas] explained that it was more a practical reality than a meaningful political position. He cited as an example the need for the PA to get $500 million from Israel: “The Palestinian finance minister has to come to an agreement with the Israeli finance minister about the transfer of the money. So how can he make an agreement with him if [the PA finance minister] does not recognize him? So I do not demand of Hamas nor any other to recognize Israel. But from the government that works with Israelis in day to day life, yes.”  Abbas even said that the Qassam rockets being fired from the Gaza Strip at Israel are "Israel's problem" and that he does not intend to interfere. "Let the Israelis deal with it," he said.  (See here)

As William Jacobson remarks:

"With Abbas’ latest move of a unity government with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, maybe it finally will sink in, Bibi is not the problem." [Emphasis added]

David Singer On Why Divided Palestinian Factions Must End Rejectionism Re Israel

"Palestine – Narrowing the Great Divide" is the title of Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's latest article.

Writes David Singer:

'The political rift between Hamas and Fatah arising from their struggle to control the minds and the hearts of the Palestinian Arabs has continued unabated and unresolved for the last six years.

Gaza and the West Bank have become two separate and distinct political fiefdoms that have materially contributed to making the attainment  of the "two-state" solution envisaged in the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map impossible to achieve.

The divide is so wide that the areas themselves have been dubbed "Hamastan" and "Fatahland"  –  signifying the utter hopelessness of reconciliation between two very polarized forces.

Political commentators Amos Harel and  Avi Issacharoff have succinctly summed up the position in their recent article "Palestinian unity can wait – discord still growing between Hamas and Fatah":

"Both entities – the West Bank (Fatahland) and the Gaza Strip (Hamastan) - continue their bizarre dance: endless negotiations on the need for unity with zero actions or results, and a reality that only proves how wide the internal Palestinian divide is."

The results of a recent survey indicate that there is also deep division between the "1948 Arabs" –  those who did not flee the 1948 War between the Jews and six invading Arab armies – and those Arabs who did, identified as the "1967 Arabs".

The survey was undertaken by Professor Shifra Sagy, director of the Conflict Management and Resolution Program at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev –  with funding from the German research foundation DFG.

The study came at the initiative of some of Professor Sagy’s Palestinian students. It was co-directed with her postdoctoral student Dr. Adi Mana, and PhD students Anan Srour and Serene Madjali.

The survey was taken among 1104 Israeli Arabs and 948 West Bank  Arabs - who were all personally interviewed.

Views were expressed by each group on the following matters –  and commented on by Professor Sagy:

    1. Loyalty to the land:

"We asked Arabs of ’48 about their narrative, which is that they were loyal to their land when they didn’t desert it and stayed. The ’67 people look at the same issue, and they say the ’48 Arabs stayed on their land because they gave up and succumbed to the occupation without any resistance"      

    2. The relative well-being of the 1948 Arabs as compared to the 1967 Arabs: 

"The ‘48 Arabs say this is our right as citizens of Israel, but in the West Bank, the popular narrative is that this relative affluence is because Israel coopted them into being loyal"

     3.  On marrying each other:

60 percent of Israeli Arabs surveyed said they would not want their daughter to marry a  West Bank Arab, while 41 per cent of West Bankers had the same attitude to their daughter marrying an Arab with Israeli citizenship.

Prof. Sagy concludes that:

"Both groups think of themselves as Palestinians, but narratives are different regarding very crucial issues. What it reveals here is that over the past 60 years, this has really become two distinctly different groups."

One does not have to look very far to ascertain the reasons – which can be put down to the following:

    the unification of the West Bank with Jordan and the granting of Jordanian nationality to the West Bank Arabs between 1950-1967 – with Jordanian citizenship continuing to be enjoyed until 1988;
    the West Bank Arabs being under Israeli occupation between 1967-1993; and
    the grant of civil administrative autonomy to the Palestinian Authority bringing 95 per cent of the West Bank Arab population under its control since 1993 [My emphasis here and below]

Researcher Anan Srour commented:

"Perhaps there are some radicals who see this survey and will think it’s too controversial. We heard this occasionally in comments from the participants, in both directions. Some said that it’s really an issue, that we are two groups."  

Professor Sagy further noted:

'It is possible that the ’48 Arabs’ status as a small minority, at times threatened, both within Israeli society and the Arab world, has strengthened their group cohesion and their need to protect their unique collective narrative. Despite feeling that their common connection and identity with the ’67 Arabs is very important and significant, that connection could come at a heavy price, according to respondents, by bringing into doubt their connection to Israeli society. It is possible that it is for this reason that they distance themselves from the ’67 Arabs more than the ’67 Arabs do, and stress their unique potential as a "bridge" between the two nations'

Gazan Arabs were not included in the survey because it was deemed too risky an undertaking.  One suspects that their viewpoint would be very different to each of the two groups surveyed.

Indeed it would be very interesting if the same survey was conducted among Palestinian Arabs living in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon – where their experiences have been entirely different to those of the three Arab populations in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

The results of this research herald the need for both Hamas and the PLO to give up their declared political aim of wiping Israel off the face of the map –  the only thread they have had to unite Palestinian Arabs since the formation of the PLO in 1964.

Are we indeed witnessing the genesis of a people movement not marching in step with the declared political aims of either Hamas or the PLO –  as evidenced by the easing of entry restrictions enabling 120,000 West Bank Arabs to visit Israel during the holy month of Ramadan?

Israel’s decision last month elicited the following comment from Daoud Kuttab:

"Naturally, Palestinians were delighted to be able to pray in Jerusalem's Aqsa Mosque and visit relatives and friends in Jerusalem and inside the Green Line. Many had not been in Jerusalem for decades. Parents took their children (some teenagers) to see a Jerusalem they had never seen. Many flooded West Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa and other locations.

Palestinians shopped (the Malha mall is said to have sold goods worth 2 million shekels in one weekend). They hit the beaches and stores, enjoying a rare occasion to get out of the closed area of the West Bank."

Denied any vote for six years –  the West Bank Arabs had voted with their feet –  indicating to their political masters that the time had come to narrow the divide between the 1948 Arabs and the 1967 Arabs, not by trying to eliminate the State of Israel but co-existing peacefully with it.'

Jewish Delegate To UNHRC Slams "Forty Years Of Palestinianism" (video)

Recently, David G. Littman of the World Council for Progressive Judaism (who was rebuked by the president of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva for having the temerity to raise the issue Islam's oppression of women at the forum http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/07/women-oppressed-under-islam-show-some.html) also delivered some home truths regarding the unrepealed 1968 PLO Covenant, Arafat's description in 1983 of Jesus as "the first Palestinian martyr," Palestinian antisemitism, and the Palestinian claim to a Canaanite origin that predates and negates the Jewish People's claim to its ancestral homeland.  As long as the Fatah and Hamas Charters remain unchanged, he warned, peace will prove elusive.

And don't miss Steven J. Rosen's article in Foreign Affairs, which argues that the Palestinian state expected to be recognised by the UN next month will be no state at all: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/03/the_palestinians_imaginary_state

Cautioning The United Nations Regarding Palestinian Statehood

Here's another considered article by David Singer, the Sydney lawyer who is a founder of the International  Analysts Network.  Entitled "Palestine – Testing The World's Patience," it comes via the antipodean J-Wire service.

Writes David Singer:

The Palestinian Authority headed by an unelected president – Mahmoud Abbas – and an unelected prime minister – Salam Fayyad – continue to live in a fantasy dream world.

Talks to replace the Fayyad Government with yet another unelected Government comprising the two arch rival Palestinian factions – Hamas and Fatah – continue to founder despite the pomp and fanfare that accompanied the signing of a heads of agreement between them in Cairo on 4 May.

On 29 June Fatah and Hamas were reported to have agreed to delay the formation of the unity government until after the expected United Nations vote on Palestinian Arab statehood in September. The official Saudi Press Agency said PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas relayed the proposal to Hamas through Turkey, which has reportedly sought to resolve obstacles to reconciliation.

This delay comes as no surprise. Turkey is wasting its time trying to remove the insurmountable obstacles to the formation of such a unity government.

Any idea that Hamas would join a government of national unity with Fatah to seek recognition in the United Nations of a second Arab state in just 5% of former Palestine is an illusion.

For Hamas it is 100% of former Palestine or nothing.

Hamas – The Islamic Resistance Movement – makes its sworn objective of creating an Islamic State in all of former Palestine very clear in Article 11 of its Charter:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection.

Fatah on the other hand seeks to create a secular state in all of former Palestine as is made clear in articles 12 and 13 of its Constitution :

Article 12: Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

Article 13: Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens’ legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) – the love child conceived by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993 – remains captive to the objectives of the PLO – which believes the liberation of former Palestine can be achieved in stages by first regaining a territorial foothold in the West Bank and Gaza as the prelude to a final all out assault on Israel and Jordan.

This is made clear in articles 1 and 9 of the PLO Charter:

Article 1: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

 Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

British Mandate Palestine comprised what is today known as Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza – and the PLO claims all of it.

The PA is nothing more than a negotiating front for the PLO. The PA lacks any real independent authority, political credibility or the ability to conclude a peace treaty with Israel that would be permanently binding on the Palestinian Arabs.

The PA is captive to the aims and ambitions of Hamas and the PLO – which itself is dominated by Fatah and does not include Hamas among its members.

The PA President – Mahmoud Abbas – is totally conflicted as head of both the PLO and Fatah as well.

In the face of this overwhelming commonality of interest between Hamas, Fatah and the PLO to get rid of both the Jews in Israel and the Hashemites in Jordan – one must ask why the United Nations could possibly believe that any approach by the politically neutered PA to recognize a Palestinian Arab State in the West Bank and Gaza could advance the cause of peace and end a conflict that has lasted 130 years.

The Palestinian Arabs have passed up countless opportunities to achieve their own state in the West Bank and Gaza during the last 74 years – and on some occasions in even more territory than that – in:

1937 – when recommended by the Peel Commission

1947 – when recommended by the United Nations

1948-1967 – when such a state could have been created by the stroke of an Arab League pen after all the Jews living there had been driven out

1950 – when the West Bank Arabs instead chose to unify with Jordan

2001 and 2008 – when offers by Israel to cede sovereignty in more than 90% of the West Bank were rejected by the PA

2005 – when Israel disengaged and evacuated all its citizens and military forces from Gaza

Any United Nations decision to recognize such a state in 2011 would fly in the face of international law – particularly the Montevideo Convention 1933 - and open up the United Nations to demands to recognize similar claims for independence and secession by scores of other groups agitating for self-determination within many of the member states of the United Nations.

The United Nations should make it clear that until the Palestinian Arabs speak as one and declare their intention is not to eliminate two UN member states – Israel and Jordan – any thoughts of revisiting a proposal made by this very organization and rejected 63 years ago will not be entertained again.

The world has bent the knee for far too long trying to do appease the Palestinian Arabs. It is time for the Palestinian Arabs to clean out the stables and get a single unified government which is prepared to sign an unconditional peace treaty declaring its readiness to recognize the sovereignty and independence of Israel and Jordan.

Until this happens the United Nations would be well advised to turn down any PA approach in September.