The Fatah Website: “A Strategy of Peace”

With thanks to IMRA for posting this.

[IMRA: Once again Yasser Arafat’s Fatah makes clear – (even in English!) that they do not consider themselves obligated to honor the signed commitment that was a necessary condition for Oslo – that the Palestinians would not use violence. Abandon that commitment and Oslo is (as it has become) a farce. And, contrary to the narrative below, Palestinian violence began (continued) from day one of Oslo.

Note also the interesting wording: “The areas to be reoccupied are those where the confrontation should occur although it might be bloody for the Israeli side.” = kill Israelis in the territories but there also “might be” killing Israelis inside the Green Line.]

The Declaration of Principles (D.O.P.), i.e. the Oslo Accord, signed in 1993, introduced a strategy of peace between the P.L.O. and the government of Israel. The agreement did not elicit the required consensus, but later it won the absolute majority. This gave it the momentum it needed to develop into the interim stage during which the PNA, its legislative council, and the President were elected and the negotiations were launched.

In the same year, however, the Israeli electorate rejected the Oslo peace approach when they refused the candidate of the Labor Party, Shimon Peres. Instead, Netenyahu was brought into office as the representative of a party, the Likud, that voted against the Oslo Accord.

The Palestinian strategy of peace was met with one of war from the Israeli side. In fact, one can think of the September 1996 uprising as a Palestinian reaction to Israeli attempts to abandon their commitments under the Oslo Accord. It was then President Clinton who forced Netenyahu’s government to sign the Hebron Protocol. Although the Protocol had more votes in the Knesset than the Oslo Accord did, the Likud representatives remained faithful to their nature.

They showed their disregard for peace when their party launched a campaign to build a settlement on Abu Ghneim Mountain. The step was in line with the Likud’s ideology that rejects the dismantling of settlements. It also denies all the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people including the establishment of a Palestinian state, the return of Jerusalem, or the right of return for the Palestinian refugees – all the basic requirements of peace.

Despite Clinton’s efforts that led to the signing of the Wye River Memo, the peace process deteriorated as a result of Netenyahu’s government insistence on lowering the expectations of the Palestinian people through the use of force.

Netenyahu left the political scene to be replaced by a Laborite of Likud tendencies- Barak. He adopted his predecessor’s policies in trying to lower our expectations. His proposals at Camp David II showed his true intentions after he refused for months to fulfill Israel’s obligations under the agreements signed. These proposals were reflected in Clinton’s that were originally phrased by the Zionist Denis Ross. They violated different aspects of UN resolutions. In fact, Barak later acknowledged that his proposal concerning Jerusalem was not real, and it was put forward just to know the PNA’s position on the issue.

The war on the Palestinian people escalated in the aftermath of Sharon’s obnoxious visit to al Aqsa Mosque. The Palestinians reacted in order to stress their desire for a true peace based on international legality. The Intifada has aimed to emphasize the Arab and Islamic character of al Aqsa and Jerusalem in addition to the other basic national principles.

Many observers think that Sharon does not have a political project to offer at the negotiating table. This is not fully true; Sharon has a complete political project that he wants to impose on the Palestinian people. He does not believe in negotiations since he assumes that there isn’t an equal partner. But he will not succeed where his predecessor failed.

At Camp David II, President Arafat refused Clinton’s proposals that apparently suggested an Israeli withdrawal from 95% of the area of the West Bank. As a matter of fact, Israel was supposed to move its troops out from only 69% of the West Bank area. 26% of the area was left out to be controlled by Israel, and this includes places like Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, the demilitarized zone, and al Latroun. The 69% from which Israel was supposed to withdraw is made up of three cantons in addition to a fourth in Gaza.

It is clear that what was offered at Camp David II did not represent a golden opportunity. In comparison, Sharon’s political project suggests a withdrawal from 42% of the West Bank area leaving final status issues to be negotiated in a prolonged interim period.

The Israeli military escalation against the peaceful functions of the Intifada elicited a Palestinian military response against the Israeli occupying army and the illegal settlers. This enabled Barak and, later, Sharon to picture the Intifada as part of a military confrontation between two parties. It should be noted here that the right to resist occupation is legitimate in areas internationally endorsed as occupied areas.

Israel has been using its military power in an unequal confrontation to impose Sharon’s political project on the Palestinians. For this purpose, Israel turned the Palestinian territories into a battlefield. It controlled the roads and practiced all evil acts including the assassination of Intifada activists, the occupation of PNA-controlled areas, and besieging cities and villages.

All these practices failed to undermine the Palestinian steadfastness despite the support Sharon has received from the US Administration. He was allowed to ‘tame’ the Palestinians during the first hundred days of his government. In addition, the US envoys approved his demand of having seven days of quiet as a prelude for implementing the Mitchell report.

Sharon continued to invent methods for eliciting Palestinian reactions although President Arafat declared a cease-fire and more than seven days passed without any major incidents. He thought that the September 11th events could open the way for him to become a partner in the ‘war against terror’.

The explosions in Haifa and Jerusalem could never have been better timed to serve Sharon’s interests. The US peace envoy, Zeny, was in the area; Sharon was visiting Washington to meet George Bush; and the US was about to achieve an easy victory in Afghanistan without the need for an Arab support. Killing civilians, i.e. Israel settlers, as a result of a legitimate act of resistance was easily depicted as an act of terrorism whereas the state organized terror of Israel became legal. The Palestinian position became more awkward, especially after the US demanded the PNA to outlaw the military wings of Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP.

The situation deteriorated rapidly after the US adopted the Israeli position concerning ‘terrorism’. On his first visit to the area, general Zeny told President Arafat that his mission goes beyond implementing the cease-fire and it ultimately aims to establish a Palestinian state in line with the US’ s vision. Zeny’s second visit coincided with the Jerusalem-Haifa explosions that the US strongly condemned. The allegation that a Palestinian weapon shipment was on its way from Iran to the PNA complicated the situation although the PNA denied any connection to the ship.

The issue of the weapon shipment was seen as a violation of the peace agreements from the US and Israeli identical perspectives. However, if the fulfilling of obligations towards the peace agreements is the criterion upon which the US passes its judgement, what about the Israeli insistence on adopting a strategy of war and aggression against the Palestinian people? President Arafat declared on more than one occasion our adherence to the peace agreements signed with Israel. But this should not be read as a sign of weakness or surrender.

The Intifada is an integral part of the Palestinian peace strategy since it represents the only way of defending the rights that Sharon’s government persists in denying. It will remain so as long as Israel uses its arsenal to impose its version of peace that has no relevance to the UN resolutions. As a matter of fact, the Israeli flagrant violation of the peace agreements makes it unethical for any party to accuse the PNA of harboring terrorism on the false pretext of ordering a weapon shipment.

If Sharon’s government aims to destroy the possibility of future coexistence, it becomes a Palestinian responsibility to ensure that our peace strategy forbids the harming of Israeli civilians. This is in line with our Islamic heritage, and there is no justification for following the example of Sharon’s heinous aggression. We have the right to obtain weapons that we can use against Israeli tanks and fighter planes but not against Israeli civilians.

Sharon and the US managed to invest the question of the weapon shipment and placed much of the responsibility on President Arafat personally. Sharon found a golden opportunity to settle old scores with Arafat after twenty years of the battle of Beirut when he was dismissed from the Israeli ministry of war.

In his last visit, general Zeny found that the Israeli National Security Council offered the political leadership two options that specify the military strategy to be followed:

1. To deal with Arafat as a leader who cannot conclude an agreement, but not to harm him personally. The Council called for adopting a scenario of continued pressure on Arafat to force him out of the Territories as a first step of replacing him with a more realistic leader.
2. To place pressure on Arafat in coordination with the US Administration, assuming that Arafat would not make a strategic decision to fight terrorism, but he would adopt tactical measures that would lead to relative quiet. Israel in this case will be able to impose an interim solution to be completed later with a new leadership. (Aluf Ben, Haaretz, 5th January, 2002)

It seems that Sharon has adopted the second option excluding the first option since he knows from his experience that Arafat’s expulsion will only flare up the Intifada. The option he adopted is in line with the US current policy that wants neither to harm Arafat nor to destroy the PNA. However, the public support that Arafat has received made Sharon modify his plan that is based on the following:

1. To keep Arafat within the range of the Israeli fire;
2. To carry out demands that Arafat would not do to maintain the national unity that Sharon aims to harm;
3. To reoccupy parts of the PNA-controlled areas, a step that no longer attracts the attention of the US Administration nor that of the leaders of the Arab neighboring countries;
4. To control most of the PNA-controlled areas leaving an area of 5-10% from area (A) to prepare the grounds for implementing Sharon’s plot.

This plot is based on the following points:

1. To sign a new agreement that nullifies all previous ones, but it will have the same terms of reference;
2. To declare the state of Palestine with its temporary borders in areas A&B (42% of the West Bank area plus the Gaza Strip);
3. To put a time line for an interim period during which the final status issues would be negotiated;
4. The US Administration will pledge that the final borders of the state of Palestine are those of 4/6/1967 and what can be agreed on through negotiations including Jerusalem;
5. To cease all forms of violence and incitement.

Israel and the US assume that what the Palestinian people might reject now will become later acceptable in better conditions to be prepared by some of those who wish to succeed Arafat. Should we therefore allow the plot to proceed until the last castle is broken through? The answer is no. We should not allow the Israeli elephant, Sharon, to destroy our china shop nor that of the Israeli people. After all, the two peoples know the advantages of living in peace and harmony.

It is the responsibility of all the forces in the Palestinian society to turn the current state of emergency into one of confrontation. This requires an emergency central committee comprised of all forces not forgetting the desirable effect that the presence of foreign delegations would have on the international community. The areas to be reoccupied are those where the confrontation should occur although it might be bloody for the Israeli side. The Israeli society has to raise its voice against Sharon whose criminal acts bring hate and disasters.

To defend our national project, we have to maintain our right to resistance, strengthen our national unity, end political detention and release all prisoners who might be arrested by Israel.

Disillusioned are those who think that a positive response to the demands of Sharon and Zeny will end Sharon’s greed. ‘Hell’ is the name of the Israeli army’s current operation, and it is an indicative name since it echoes our understanding of hell on the judgement day when hell keeps on asking for more; it never gets satisfied- like Sharon.

Revolution until Victory.