Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
About those Palestinian elections
Since Mahmoud Abbas announced that he won't stand for re-election, controversy has swirled around his intentions. Is he bluffing? Does it mean the end of the peace process? Will he change his mind? Well, today I was talking with a friend who very closely monitors Palestinian election matters, who is just in town visiting from Jerusalem. He pointed out that developments on the ground suggest strongly that the elections aren't going to be held, rendering it all rather moot.
Basically, for the elections to be held in January, certain things need to be happening. Once the Presidential decree was issued, the Elections Commission needed to start voter registration procedures... tomorrow. That involves opening about 1000 voter registration centers, hiring and training some 3000 staffers, securing voting centers and preparing materials. Evidently, none of that is happening. That's kind of a tell.
Part of this is because Hamas has refused to take part and is preventing anything from being organized in Gaza. That's the harvest of the Egyptian (and American-driven) failure to achieve a national unity agreement between Hamas and Fatah -- without a political agreement on the terms of co-existence, Hamas was never going to agree to elections on Fatah's terms. West Bank only elections are unlikely, because nobody in the electoral commission wants to legitimize the division of Palestine into two distinct entities.
If there are no elections, it doesn't mean that Abu Mazen is going away. As a number of analysts have pointed out, he has shown no signs of giving up his hold on other institutional power centers - in Fatah, in the PLO, or even on the Presidency whatever the status of his electoral mandate. Most likely, by this argument, he'll just carry on as before without anyone much caring whether or not he's been re-elected. This certainly won't help the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority, contribute to the rule of law or institutional development, or provide a unified and legitimate negotiating partner should talks ever get underway. But that seems to be where this is heading.
As to whether there's really some secret Palestinian plan for Salam Fayyad to unilaterally declare a state and get international recognition, with American support.... sounds unlikely to me. Is the whole PA leadership about to quit? Who knows? Few people seem to have really thought through what might happen in the absence of the fig leaf of a formal peace process. I'm interested to hear from those who have, such as my colleagues Nathan Brown (who I hear has something in the works along those lines, stay tuned) and Rob Malley (UPDATE: and right on cue...)
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
What is
Abu Aardvark?
Writing under this pseudonym, Marc Lynch began his influential Middle East politics blog Abu Aardvark in 2002...
Contact me at:
abuaardvark [at]
gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, @abuaardvark
Follow me on
:
@abuaardvark
No unilateral Palestinian state
Why would Salem Fayyad even consider declaring a unified Palestinian state at this point? As Marc Lynch has stated over and over again, Palestinian politics is perhaps at the most fragmented point in its history. Not only is the political process divided between two distinct entities, but the Palestinian people remain divided between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This separation is not only due to geography; it also has something to do with intense Palestinian political loyalties.
From what I can gather, if you are a Palestinian who is semi-engaged in the political process, you are either a supporter of Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah Party or an advocate of the Hamas movement. There does not appear to be any moderation between the two camps...a development that is conductive to arrogance, stalemate, and an unwillingness to compromise on key issues. Abbas' American-trained forces are still battling Hamas militants in the West Bank, and Hamas militants are still viewing Fatah as a corrupt American puppet. As long as this is happening, there is no chance for a unified Palestinian state, regardless if Fayyad declares one or not.
In addition, I am not so sure that the U.S. Government would endorse such a plan- as Lynch seems to state at the end of his post. President Obama probably does not want to alienate and anger the Israeli Government any more than he has over the past nine months. Recognizing a unilaterally declared Palestinian state- without the approval of Israel- would only add insult to injury to the P.M. Netanyahu. Of course, depending on which side you are on, this could either be a refreshing change in the U.S.-Israeli relationship (one that emphasis equality in the Middle East peace process rather than American submission); or it could be a setback for U.S. interests in the Middle East. These days, I tend to think that more people would agree with the former rather than the latter.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
Not to mention..
that Mr. Fayyad is neither a member of Fateh nor to that effect of Hamas. He is an independent politician. Therefore under the division of political belonging expressed by your good self, his chances of political survival with a UDI, would be less than a zero.
khairi janbek.paris/france
He's got next to no political
He's got next to no political support among the Palestinian populace, so it probably is safe to say that without Abbas as a patron (and the PA apparatus in general), Fayyad's status is near-zero.
Personally my goodself as a
Personally my goodself as a lifetime non Jewish, secular, Left, zionist would dearly love to see Fayyad and Abbas unilaterally declaring the Palestinian state on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.
They should reveal publicly whatever land swaps they have already backroom negotiated with Israel, and warmly offer the remaining Israeli settlers full Palestinian citizenship if they wish to remain in the West Bank.
They should guarantee all Palestinian refugees citizenship in the new Palestinian state and challenge them as to why they would even want to live in Israel in the first place?
They should publicly declare demilitarisation and a transition period of at least 5 years of whatever IDF presence they know after all these years of negotiations that Israel would regard as redline to meet its security anxieties. This should be represented as a plus not a minus.
They should, in their declaration, declare that they accept Israel having sovereignity over the Wailing Wall, because they recognise why this so essential for the jews, as per the Clinton proposals of 2000/2001 and otherwise accept the Clinton proposal for the division of Jerusalem.
They should demand Hamas immediately accept the PA's recognition of Israel, renouncement of violence and recognise previous internatonally endorsed agreements.
They should declare furthermore that now there is a unilateral declaration of the Palestinian state Hamas should immediately recognise the authority of the the PA and agree to its security forces being under the command and control of the PA.
Finally, in the declaration, they should invite themselves on behalf of the newly declared Palestinian State to the Knesset in Jerusalem to put their proposals directly to the elected representatives of the Israeli people.
Then, when they appear at the Knesset, which will happen soon after, they should declare their intention to put their proposals to referendum and request the Israeli parliament to do the same.
In other words CARPE DIEM.
Being loosely tgrasnlated as VICTIMS GET NOWHERE.
Or, in the Australian vernacular: PUT IT UP THE BASTARDS. WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOSE?
A wee point of order.
Certainly your good self is entitled to love to see anything you like, and one is not just about to debate this prerogative, but want to mention a tiny fact, and that is in various talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, late Mr. Arafat at the time, and Mr. Abbas after him have offered the Palestinian nationality to the Israeli settlers. The point was rejected by both, the settlers themselves and the successive Israeli governments.
Perhaps what your good self loves to see, may well be possible, if the Israeli government tells the settlers that, if they want to stay where they are they have to take up the Palestinian nationality, or otherwise, move behind the green line.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Perhaps what your good self
That's what I'd do. I support the whole "declare an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza" idea, by the way; it'd force the Israelis' hand.
what Difference Does it Make?.
If Mr. Abbas does goes through with the elections, it will be for a Palestine squeezed between the Israeli controlled Jordan valley and the separation wall, with the settlements where they are, minus Gaza and minus Jerusalem. If Mr. Fayyad declares UDI, it will be for the same Palestine with the same dimensions. So, how would the same Palestine look different to the one which already exists now?. Well the same is the same. Therefore, I don't think that either the elections or UDI are really serious options. Prof.Lynch; for what's it worth, I agree.
One is tempted to say under the circumstances, to forget about the peace process, and concentrate on managing the status quo; in the manner of conflict management rather than resolution, but at the same time, I cannot accept the responsibility of such a temptation; especially when I believe that, the status quo cannot be managed, and the alternative to it is likely to be violence in the extreme.
khairi janbek.paris/france
If Mr. Fayyad declares UDI,
You think so? He could probably lay claim to all of the area Israel captured in 1967 (West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem) and stand a reasonable chance of having that recognized in the UN (I think even the US would balk at blocking recognition of a Palestinian state in the UN if it came to that).
As for whether or not it would end up like that - well, it depends. The situation might cause a war, in which case the boundaries would be whatever they ended up settling at after the conflict.
re-If Mr. Fayyad..
He can claim anything he likes, but the moment he declares UDI, any talk of the future of Jerusalem will end by Mr. Netanyahu; not that it is up for discussions by the Israelis now. Hamas will reject this state outright, consequently, Mr./Ms. Brett, Mr. Fayyad will end up with the same surface area he is currently the Prime Minister of. With or without UDI, it is really the same.
As for the Washington administration, judging from its performance over the settlements issue, if your good self thinks that, it can persuade the Israeli governemnt to discuss the future of the city of Jerusalem, let alone divide it, I really don't know what to say.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Egyptian failure?
Is anything, ever, the Palestinians fault?
Just asking.
True, rather unfair.
if the Palestinians do not get their act together, and have no wish to be united, what can the Egyptians, the US, or any other party do, to help out?.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Certainly Palestinians get
Certainly Palestinians get blamed, as to the Israelis, Americans, and the Egyptians. All parties are at fault. The Arabs have neglected to formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East; the United States has refused to promote a level playing field between the Israelis and Palestinians since the Oslo Accords in 1993; the Israelis are aggressively pursuing their notion of a "Greater Israel" in the occupied territories; and the Egyptians seem ambigious in their resolve. It is not exclusively a Palestinian problem- as AIPAC would claim- although the Hamas-Fatah rivalry does not exactly help advocate peace along the way.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
Don't recall the late Mr
Don't recall the late Mr Arafat ever addressing the Knesset offering full citizenship to Israeli settlers in a Palestinian state.
And of course, such an offer would have so much more power in the context of a UDI.
My underlying point in previous post was that Abbas and Fayyad should throw off the mantle of eternal victimhood and force the issue.
And as Brett says, claim the whole of Palestine to the Green Line! Why not? As long as they recognise Israel's right to its holy places and its security concerns by accepting demilitarisatioin, a transition period and right of return only to the Palestinian state, Bibi would have a real fight on his hands.
And if they put Hamas in the sights fair and square, Israel wouldn't have that argument left. The Quartet would have to support Abbas.
So would Obama in the end. Otherwise Cairo WILL really be seen as bullshit.
And as for the Palestinians caring and sharing Arab neighbours, they of course would be shocked and appalled, not to say deeply embarrassed by the very notion of Palestinian upstarts standing up to the world and taking their destiny in their own hands. Too bad.
Why scared of Bibi?
When Fayyad and Abbas declare UDI, why on earth would they have to declare it ONLY up to the security fence? Of course they don't. They can claim as much of the territory as they like!
As for the IDF in the Jordan valley, who cares, Abbas and Fayyad can declare that the IDF can stay there for a period of 5 years at the invitation of the Palestinian State. In other words, the Palestinian State takes the initiative and sets the terms.
Hamas would reject the State?
Would they? So what? What would the Gazans think about that? Would Hamas then deny the Gazans the opportunity to vote in the referendum? What would the Gazans think then?
Even if Hamas were stupid enough to deprive the people of Gaza of their rightful place in the Palestinian State there is no reason at all why the State can't function as a State in the West Bank until Hamas comes to its senses, recognises the Palestinian authority, recognises Israel, accepts the PA security forces etc etc. In fact, that's what the current situation is.
At the very least it would give Tony Blair and Sinn Fein a fine negotiating job.
Would the situation cause a war? Very unlikely, if the Palestinian state acknowledges the Temple Mount and Israel's security concerns. There would be no appetite in Israel for one.
But if Israel were stupid enough to try it on, all the Palestinians would have to do then is adopt the Ghandi principles of passive resistence!
Would "talk of the future of Jerusalem end by Mr Netanyahu?"
So what? Why be so scared of Bibi? He is just a man, like all others believe it or not. UDI is not about Bibi talking, it is about Palestine declaring its borders. The PA negotiators know very well what the Jerusalem parameters are, they were set down by Bill Clinton in 2000 and no doubt there has been further negotiations with Olmert. So Abbas and Fayyad should know what the Israel redlines are , and should be able to take them into account when they farme their claim for East Jerusalem.
And, btw, of course Fayyad and Abbas, in their UDI, should demand an immediate end to all settlement construction in the new State. What is the Arabic for "Over to you, President Obama."
My point.
Indeed, over to you Mr. Obama, though it would be more effective if it was said in Hebrew. I think we tend to forget that, technically, there is already an Independent Palestinian State, declared by late Mr. Arafat in mid-Novemeber 1988 in the PLO conference in Algiers. The declaration specified the national anthem, the flag, and the territory based on UN Sec.Council resolution 242, and with Jerusalem as its capital, and is recognised by around 100 countries.
Going back to Mr. Fayyad issue, my point remains that, I don't understand why his new declaration of independence is a threat to anyone also. I mean, all what he will get is the rump of what he has now as a prime minister. ie. minus Gaza and minus Jerusalem. If the Palestinian people accept that who am I to complain?. As for the caring...etc Arab countries, two of them already have a peace agreement with Israel, while another 8 have some sort of relations with Israel. To some Arab countries peace is a strategic imperative and not an act of ultruism towards the palestinians.
As for the right of return of the Palesitnian refugees, it really is not solely up to either Israel or the Mr. Fayyad alone. It is a question of multi-lateral nature, involving all the hosting countries of the refugees; some have a peace treaty with Israel and some still don't. In addition, the term refugees is not a reference to those whom come originally from the west bank of Jordan or Gaza; termed as Displaced people, rather from Israel proper. The west bank and Gaza have already their own Palestinian refugees camps. Mind you, if Mr. Fayyad or any other Palestinian Mr. declares that the right of return is null and void, and that he is not interested any longer in Jerusalem, I humbly rate his political survival in the same Kamikazi terms, as any Israeli politician declaring that he/she are not interested in Jerusalem and, will accept the right of return.
Moreover, if Mr. Fayyad is willing to take back to his Palestinian state; approximately 5600 square Km, and population of 1.45 million, whomever wishes to return from the Palestinian refugees 3-4 million, then again good luck to him, if anyone can see that happening.
No wonder your good self doesn't recall late Mr. Arafat declaring anything in the Knessett. He was not allowed dead to enter Jerusalem let alone alive. But I can assure you that, the issue of nationality to the settlers was explored over many occasions in negotiations between the two parties.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Other Candidates?
I've been saying it for years, but this is a fantastic opportunity to give Marwan Barghouthi a chance. I think he's pragmatic enough to work with the Israelis, has the street cred to win a fair election in Gaza (if Hamas allows that to happen), and would be seen as someone credible for addressing the terrible corruption we've seen in the PA.
I really feel like Israel has their most credible partner for a peaceful Palestinian state locked up today.
Certainly if..
he can get his 5 life sentences commuted.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Ah well ...
Even the suggestion that the Palestinians should take control of their own destiny, declare UDI and challenge President Obama in Arabic is judged to be more effective if it comes in Hebrew!
Honestly. How comprehensively the Israelis appear to psychologically "own" the arab mind.
Just imagine if Abbas and Fayyad declared the Palestinian state on the lines I have suggested - ie outflanking the Israelis by meeting their security concerns --- and at the same time informed Obama and the Quartet via diplomatic channels that if recognition is not forthcoming they will both retire immediately and permanently from public life.
Just imagine. Fayyad is beloved of the EU which has poured so much money into developing the territories. They are totally reliant on him. Abbas personifies 15 years of US diplomatic and financial investment in Oslo and the PA. It would mean the total ruination of decades of US foreign policy as the direct result of Obama's failure to follow through on his Cairo speech.
In my view, its a no brainer. If Obama was presented with a major challenge to the status quo by the Palestinians acting instead of continuing to wring their hands, he have no choice but seize the opportunity to advance the breakthrough. But it would all be dependent on Abbas and Fayyad being smart enough to meet Israel's security concerns and recognising jewish religious and cultural relationship to the Wailing Wall. Otherwise the zionist lobby on whom the Democratic Party is so dependent could and would drive a train through it.
However, detected in JB's comments is the sense that the 1948 war is still being fought by both the Palestinians and the Arabs? I have no quarrel with this. But it means the Israelis will continue to do what Israelis do to guarantee the existence of their state and the status quo suits them very well.
re- Ah well..
I don't think really that Israel owns psychologically Arab minds, anymore than it owns,say, Australian minds. However saying it in Hebrew may well be where the US expects the answers to come from. Anyway, not important. Yesterday I heard Dr. Sa'eb Ureikat; the chief Palestinian peace negotiator declare that, 18 years of negotiations with Israel have failed, and that, Mr. Abbas does not believe, a Palestinian state can emerge while Mr. Netanyahu is in power.
Well, Mr. Abbas has the choice of talking right now, and trying to get what he can for the Palesitnian people from the Israeli government, or, sit and sulk while Mr. Netanyahu continues to impliment his government's programme.
I don't know if there will US and EU pressures on Mr. Netanyahu over the settlements issue; I personally doubt, but still irrespective, the PNA must sit and really reflect on their own share of the mistakes since 1974, when late Mr. Arafat demanded the right for an independent Palestinian decision and the right for the PLO to be the sole reprsentative of the Palestinian people; and he got them, all the way, to the Arab-Israeli negotiations after Madrid, when also, the late Mr. Arafat decided that, the paralell negotiations in the Oslo kitchen, were more favourable than the negotiations held by the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation with Israel.
Again, I don't know if there will be pressures on Mr. Netanyahu; which I doubt, and I don't know if Mr. Abbas will return to the talks without pre-conditions; I belive there are efforts to that effect, but unless the PNA sits and undertakes an honest and open self-criticism of its own mistakes and approach, in order to chart a new path and strategy for itself and the future of the Palestinian people, I neither think it is fit to lead the palestinians, nor represents their best interests any longer.
The only good decision made by Mr. Abbas in this context, is to resign/ retire from his position.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Fayyad
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad published a plan in August 2009 to unilaterally declare statehood after a two-year state-building process. The Fayyad plan involves numerous governance components that already exist within the various frameworks composing the Oslo Accords, which already enable the Palestinians to develop their state-building capabilities within the peace process, and not necessarily as a unilateral initiative outside the process.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=3185&TTL=A_Paradox_of_Peacemaking:_How_Fayyad’s_Unilateral_Statehood_Plan_Undermines_the_Legal_Foundati
EU not backing it
EU just said today they wouldn't back a unilateral declaration.
Does anyone else see this as a ploy to avoid making any concessions whatsoever?
Step 1. Palestinians reject negotiations
Step 2. Palestinians claim negotiations aren't working
Step 3. Palestinians unilaterally claim as Palestinian everything that was supposed to be negotiated
IMO nothing is wrong with unilateralism in and of itself. Declaring a state is fine, but only if they do as Israel did in Gaza -- concede the territory and/or issues in dispute. I imagine they would get the backing they needed if they agreed to that, even if Israel balked. Otherwise the issues need to be negotiated.
A misconception maybe.
The Palesitnians had already declared a Palestinian state in November 1988, which was recognised by around 100 countries. What the Palestinians are seeking is a regognition of this state by the Security Council. Which means in effect, getting a UN committment for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 west bank of Jordan plus Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
This is impossible to achieve, without a negotiated settlements with Israel unfortunately. Moreover, the position of the EU is a correct position, because there would have to be a state first, before the EU considers its recognition or not.
khairi janbek.paris/france