The World Should Know What He [KUNTAR] Did to My Family

Abu Abbas, the former head of a Palestinian terrorist group who was captured in Iraq on April 15, is infamous for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro. But there are probably few who remember why Abbas’s terrorists held the ship and its 400-plus passengers hostage for two days. It was to gain the release of a Lebanese terrorist named Samir Kuntar, who is locked up in an Israeli prison for life. Kuntar’s name is all but unknown to the world. But I know it well. Because almost a quarter of a century ago, Kuntar murdered my family.

It was a murder of unimaginable cruelty, crueler even than the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, the American tourist who was shot on the Achille Lauro and dumped overboard in his wheelchair. Kuntar’s mission against my family, which never made world headlines, was also masterminded by Abu Abbas. And my wish now is that this terrorist leader should be prosecuted in the United States, so that the world may know of all his terrorist acts, not the least of which is what he did to my family on April 22, 1979.

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already murdered a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. “This is just like what happened to my mother,” I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl’s skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

The next day, Abu Abbas announced from Beirut that the terrorist attack in Nahariya had been carried out “to protest the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty” at Camp David the previous year. Abbas seems to have a gift for charming journalists, but imagine the character of a man who protests an act of peace by committing an act of slaughter.

Two of Abbas’s terrorists had been killed by police on the beach. The other two were captured, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Despite my protests, one was released in a prisoner exchange for Israeli POWs several months before the Achille Lauro hijacking. Abu Abbas was determined to find a way to free Kuntar as well. So he engineered the hijacking of the Achille Lauro off the coast of Egypt and demanded the release of 50 Arab terrorists from Israeli jails. The only one of those prisoners actually named was Samir Kuntar. The plight of hundreds held hostage on a cruise ship for two days at sea lent itself to massive international media coverage. The attack on Nahariya, by contrast, had taken less than an hour in the middle of the night. So what happened then was hardly noticed outside of Israel.

One hears the terrorists and their excusers say that they are driven to kill out of desperation. But there is always a choice. Even when you have suffered, you can choose whether to kill and ruin another’s life, or whether to go on and rebuild. Even after my family was murdered, I never dreamed of taking revenge on any Arab. But I am determined that Samir Kuntar should never be released from prison. In 1984, I had to fight my own government not to release him as part of an exchange for several Israeli soldiers who were POWs in Lebanon. I understood, of course, that the families of those POWs would gladly have agreed to the release of an Arab terrorist to get their sons back. But I told Yitzhak Rabin, then defense minister, that the blood of my family was as red as that of the POWs. Israel had always taken a position of refusing to negotiate with terrorists. If they were going to make an exception, let it be for a terrorist who was not as cruel as Kuntar.

“Your job is not to be emotional,” I told Rabin, “but to act rationally.” And he did.

So Kuntar remains in prison. I have been shocked to learn that he has married an Israeli Arab woman who is an activist on behalf of terrorist prisoners. As the wife of a prisoner, she gets a monthly stipend from the government. I’m not too happy about that.

In recent years, Abu Abbas started telling journalists that he had renounced terrorism and that killing Leon Klinghoffer had been a mistake.

But he has never said that killing my family was a mistake. He was a terrorist once, and a terrorist, I believe, he remains. Why else did he spend these last years, as the Israeli press has reported, free as a bird in Baghdad, passing rewards of $25,000 from Saddam Hussein to families of Palestinian homicide bombers? More than words, that kind of cash prize, which is a fortune to poor families, was a way of urging more suicide bombers. The fortunate thing about Abbas’s attaching himself to Hussein is that it set him up for capture.

Some say that Italy should have first crack at Abbas. It had already convicted him of the Achille Lauro hijacking in absentia in 1986. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi now wants Abbas handed over so that he can begin serving his life sentence. But it’s also true that in 1985, the Italians had Abbas in their hands after U.S. fighter jets forced his plane to land in Sicily. And yet they let him go. So while I trust Berlusconi, who knows if a future Italian government might not again wash its hands of Abbas?

In 1995, Rabin, then our prime minister, asked me to join him on his trip to the White House, where he was to sign a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat, which I supported. I believe that he wanted me to represent all Israeli victims of terrorism. Rabin dreaded shaking hands with Arafat, knowing that those hands were bloody. At first, I agreed to make the trip, but at the last minute, I declined. As prime minister, Rabin had to shake hands with Arafat for political reasons. As a private person, I did not. So I stayed here.

Now I am ready and willing to come to the United States to testify against Abu Abbas if he is tried for terrorism. The daughters of Leon Klinghoffer have said they are ready to do the same. Unlike Klinghoffer, Danny, Einat and Yael were not American citizens. But Klinghoffer was killed on an Italian ship in Abbas’s attempt to free the killer of my family in Israel.

We are all connected by the international web of terrorism woven by Abbas. Let the truth come out in a new and public trial. And let it be in the United States, the leader in the struggle against terrorism.

————— Smadar Haran Kaiser is a social worker. She is remarried and has two daughters.

The Washington Post Sunday, May 18, 2003; Page B02 NAHARIYA, Israel
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A274

Process To Determine Status Of Kidnapped Soldiers Begins

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief Rabbi Brigadier-General Rabbi Avichai Ronski received all the information possessed by the security echelon and the Intelligence Branch regarding the status of the kidnapped soldiers: Sergeant 1st Class Ehud Goldwasser and Staff Sergeant Eldad Regev.

The IDF Chief Rabbi began the process at the end of which he will determine the status of the kidnapped soldiers.

The IDF Chief Rabbi is the expert Jewish religious official in this field and is expected to review the information transferred to him and consult with various religious officials before reaching a decision.

GOC Human Resources Major-General Eliezer Stern updated the families of the kidnapped soldiers about the process and promised to update them. Any new

information will be shared with them first, including any decisions that are

made.

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com. His Web site is www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com

©The Bulletin 2008

Fatah Announces ‘Reconciliation Conference’ With Hamas

Jerusalem – The reliable Palestinian Ma’an news agency reports that a “national reconciliation conference” will shortly take place, aimed at bringing together the Fatah and the Hamas.

Ma’an reports that Simultaneous sessions, organized by the Popular Committee for National Reconciliation, will be held in Ramallah, Gaza, the Egyptian capital Cairo and the Qatari capital Doha.

The Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, will attend the session in Ramallah and the Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem Al-Thani from Doha will also address the conference.

According to Ma’an, the initiative proposes a two-sided solution. “First is to call for the release of political prisoners on both sides and to agree on a program to work towards interim presidential and legislative elections. Second is to address security and the political system, in addition to reviving the Palestine Liberation Organization.”

In that context, Hamas terrorists now sitting in Palestinian Authority jails are to be freed this week, despite pledges of Machmud Abbas to Israel and the U.S. government

The Palestinian Authority has in recent days released at least three Hamas convicts, each of whom were found guilty of attempting to murder Israelis.

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com. His Web site is www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com

©The Bulletin 2008

Young Israel Protests French President Nicolas Sarkozy

National Council of Young Israel President Shlomo Z. Mostofsky, Esq., made the following statement today in response to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s comments during his trip to Israel, in which he called on Israel to stop constructing new homes and to expel the Jews from Judea and Samaria, and said that “[t]here cannot be peace without recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two states:”

“The National Council of Young Israel is outraged at the insensitivity that President Sarkozy displayed during his current visit to Israel. At the same time that he was addressing the Knesset and declaring that France was a friend of Israel, President Sarkozy had the audacity to call on Israel to take steps that would inevitably jeopardize the safety and security of its citizens. Just as the Israeli Prime Minister would not call on France to relinquish half of Paris to its enemy, or even to a friend for that matter, President Sarkozy has no standing and no right to call on Israel to cede control of its capital to people intent on destroying its citizenry. The French President has no business suggesting that Israel divide that which is indivisible. Israel can agree to a divided Jerusalem no more than General Charles de Gaulle and the French were able to agree to a divided France under the Nazis during Work War II. The position of the National Council of Young Israel continues to be that there can be no division of Jerusalem at any time, under any circumstances.

The National Council of Young Israel is also appalled that President Sarkozy chose to advocate the expulsion of Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria. As we saw from the Israeli government’s failed experiment with Gush Katif, forcing Jews from their homes and relinquishing the land to the Palestinians does not lead to peace. President Sarkozy may think that he has all the answers to the current situation in Israel, but until he stops looking at things through the eyes of the Palestinians and develops a true understanding of the nature of the conflict and the need for Israel to defend itself, he should refrain from making suggestions and advocating positions that threaten the future of the Jewish state.”

Sarkozy and Land for Peace

Well, Sarkozy was in Jerusalem this week, and standing before the Knesset he called for Israel to agree to have Jerusalem divided, with half turned over to the savages. He also called for ethnic cleansing of the Jews living in the West Bank

These French politicians have long believed that peace could be created by turning Israel into a sort of Vichy appeasement regime. But now that they want to purchase peace with land, they may be on to something important.

Never one to back down from a challenge, I have prepared a set of proposals for consideration by the French people, so they too can achieve a full, lasting, and just peace with their historic opponents.

First, we all agree that territory must not be annexed by force.

Therefore, we can also agree that Germany has a moral right to demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine, for the French aggression in 1945 and its consequent occupation must not be rewarded. “A full withdrawal for full peace” should operate here. Further, France must agree to the return and rehabilitation of all ethnic Germans expelled from Alsace-Lorraine after World Wars I and II, as well as all those they define as their descendents.

But this, of course, is just the first step toward a solution, as no aggression can be rewarded.and France has much other stolen territory to return. It took Corsica from Genoa, Nice and Savoy from Piedmont; as the successor state, Italy must get back all these lands. By similar token, territories grabbed from the Habsburgs go back to Austria, including Franche-Comt., Artois, and historic Burgundy. The Roussillon area (along the Pyren.es) must be returned to Spain, its rightful owner. And Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, and Gascony must be returned to their rightful owners, the British royal family.

Not even this not enough for the sake of peace. Brittany and Languedoc must be granted autonomy at once, recognizing the Breton and Occitan Liberation organizations as their legal rulers. This leaves the French government in control over the.le de France (the area around Paris).

That, however, still does not solve the problem of the Holy City of Paris, sacred to artists, gourmets, and adulterers. The Corsicans obviously have a historic claim to the Tomb of the Emperor Napoleon, their famed son, as well as the Invalides complex and beyond. For the sake of peace, is it not too much to ask that Paris be the capital for two peoples? The French authorities must agree to prevent French Parisians from even entering the sacred tomb area, lest this upset the Corsicans.

The Saint Chapelle and the Church of Notre Dame of course will be internationalized, under joint Vatican-art historical auspices. Indeed, the French should consider it a compliment of the highest order that so many people see Paris as an international city.

The French have nothing to complain of. They will enjoy the benefits of peace and retain control of the Champs Elysees.

Actually, come to think of it, even the Champs Elys.es may be too much. Recalling the French position that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, perhaps the true French capital is not Paris at all, but Vichy.

Israeli POW’s – Murdered in Captivity?

On July 12th, 2006, The Hizbullah terrorist organization, based in Lebanon, ambushed an Israeli patrol on the Israel-Lebanon border, killing eight Israeli soldiers and capturing two Israeli soldiers – Sergeant 1st Class Ehud Goldwasser and Staff Sergeant Eldad Regev

After Israeli intelligence confirmed that Goldwasser and Regev were indeed taken alive, the Israeli government demanded their release. When that demand was not met, the Israeli army invaded Lebanon. Yisrael Maimon, the former Israeli cabinet secretary, briefed the media a few days later and announced that the Israeli army operation in Lebanon would continue until both Israeli soldiers are released. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, who arrived in Beirut in late July 2006, met with Hizbullah representatives and assured the world that both Israeli soldiers were still alive. The same confirmation that both soldiers were alive came later from the International Red Cross.

However, Israel agreed to the UN imposed cease fire under UN resolution 1701, on August 15th, 2006, without the Hizbullah release of the two Israeli POWs.

That resulted in an international campaign launched by the government of Israel to demand the release of Goldwasser and Regev.

Now Israeli intelligence has received new evidence that both Israeli soldiers were murdered by Hizbullah, while in captivity.

The Israeli army Chief Rabbi, Brigadier-General Rabbi Avichai Ronski received all the information possessed by the security echelon and the Intelligence Branch of the Israeli army regarding Sergeant 1st Class Ehud Goldwasser and Staff Sergeant Eldad Regev.

The Rabbi has began the process of examining new documentation that. both soldiers were indeed summarily executed.

The Israeli army Human Resources commander, Major-General Eliezer Stern updated the families of the kidnapped soldiers about the process and promised to update them. Stern promise that any new information will be shared with them first, including any decisions that are made.

Olmert Met With Planner Of Attack On Iraqi Reactor

Jerusalem – Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met on Friday in the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem with the retired Air Force Colonel Aviam Sela. The fact of the meeting was kept off of the prime minister’s official timetable, and his aides tried to downplay its importance. With that having been said, the fact that the meeting was held was confirmed in response to a question that was submitted by the Israeli Ma’ariv newspaper.

Retired Col. Aviam Sela was the person who planned Operation Opera, the operation in which the IAF bombed the nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq, in June 1981. He is considered to be the person who conceived of the idea of mid-flight refueling for combat planes. Col. Sela was marked as a future commander of the IAF but his career was derailed after he got into trouble with the Jonathan Pollard affair.

The assessment is that Mr. Olmert wanted to hear from Col. Sela what he thought about the feasibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, in the wake of the reports about a large-scale Israeli aerial exercise that was carried out in the Mediterranean Sea.

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com. His Web site is www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com

©The Bulletin 2008

Commission: Holocaust Survivors Neglected In Israel

Jerusalem – The official Israel State Commission of Inquiry for the Examination of Assistance to Concentration Camp Survivors, led by former Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner, will order the prime minister and the finance minister to increase financial assistance to concentration camp survivors. The commission is also expected to criticize the neglect of concentration camp survivors by the state for many years.

During its work, the committee heard the stories of two brothers, both concentration camp survivors, one of whom moved to Israel at the end of World War II while the other remained in Germany after the war.

The brother who lived in Germany receives twice the amount of assistance that the State of Israel pays to the brother who lives in Israel.

Since the gap in assistance between Israel and other countries is significant, the commission will instruct the state to increase the amount of assistance provided to concentration camp survivors.

The state commission was established after the Israeli Knesset Parliament’s State Audit Committee instructed the state comptroller to examine the situation of concentration camp survivors in Israel. The state comptroller’s examination revealed that the state has not learned lessons, nor does it act appropriately in this matter. Under these circumstances, and based on the state comptroller’s report, the State Audit Committee was instructed to establish a state commission of inquiry, and sought to investigate several aspects: adequate provision of the survivors’ needs in terms of finances and health and psychological care; a comparison of the circumstances of concentration camp survivors in Israel to that of those who live abroad; an examination of the behavior of the Israel Finance Ministry’s bureau for rehabilitating the handicapped toward concentration camp survivors; the behavior of the Israeli government in all matters having to do with fulfilling agreements and commitments, including international agreements that the government signed, and more.

The commission holds its meetings at Yad Vashem, the institution which memorializes the six million Jews who were murdered by the Nazis.

This week, Justice Dorner will submit the commission’s recommendations to the Israeli Knesset Parliament and to the Israel state comptroller.

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com. His Web site is www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com

©The Bulletin 2008

Israeli Fighter Jets Simulate Iran Strike

Jerusalem – Following months of verbal threats, which have already become a matter of routine, Israel has begun to show its military prowess, which some say constitutes a new troubling stage in the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Many witnessed and allowed an exercise the Israel Air Force (IAF) conducted in the Mediterranean Sea a few weeks ago, as the New York Times reported. First there was Greece, which permitted Israel to carry out the maneuvers over its territory; then there were the air traffic monitoring systems that direct civilian air traffic in the countries in the area; then there were the Russian and American aircraft carriers in the area as well as NATO, which has expressed special interest in the exercise; lastly there were hostile elements that also took a great interest in monitoring the activity of dozens of Israel’s front-line Air Force planes carrying out maneuvers between 1,200 and 1,500 miles from home.

These nations’ authorities saw it and said nothing.

Finally, it was the U.S. which decided after a few weeks to reveal not only the exercise’s existence but also its purpose, and told the world: Israel carried out an exercise simulating an attack on nuclear installations on Iranian soil.

When the diplomacy of economic and political pressure fails to produce results, a shift is made to gunboat diplomacy.

The timing chosen to go public was hardly a coincidence either. As the Iranian regime is deliberating over the EU representative’s most recent offer to stop its nuclear program in exchange for extensive benefits, the U.S. decided to add a little more pressure in the form of the Israeli Air Force.

Conversely, the U.S. has kept its military option closely under wraps. The U.S., according to sources, would prefer that Israel be the “crazy” one in this story. It is also said to be a hint to the Europeans that they should not let up their pressure on Iran, because who knows what those Israelis might do.

And in the event that anyone in the world failed to understand the inherent threat in the American leak, an anonymous source in Jerusalem took the time to explain in the British press that the maneuvers were a “dress rehearsal” for the IAF in advance of an attack on Iran.

The aerial maneuvers over the Mediterranean Sea reported by the New York Times were conducted with the assumption of duties by the new IAF commander, Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan. It appears that Iran will continue to be the principal preoccupation of the new IAF commander, the man who bears responsibility for finding a solution to the Iranian threat.

If the description in the American and British press was accurate, the IAF carried out truly irregular maneuvers in this case. This sort of training provides an ability to examine a long list of issues that stem from the long distance, such as aerial refueling, communications, coordination with other forces, with countries that have to be flown over back and forth and with friendly air forces, since mishaps can occur that require emergency landings.

Indeed, according to the Cypriot media, two Israeli Blackhawk helicopters with 10 soldiers performed emergency landings in Cyprus due to a malfunction. According to the report, the helicopters continued on their way to Crete after fixing the malfunction. The bottom line is that the State of Israel cannot launch an operation of this sort on its own, without coordinating matters with other countries.

Since Israel can’t train in Sinai any more, and it certainly cannot do so over Jordan, it has turned westward, according to reports. Beginning in the late 1990s when Eitan Ben-Eliyahu was the Air Force commander, the IAF began to fly long distances and would coordinate matters with a broad variety of countries. It flew in North America, Malta, Sicily, Turkey, Romania, Germany and now Greece as well.

The most recent exercise was very unusual in terms of its size. If the reports are accurate, a significant portion of the IAF’s fighting force took wing and flew great distances. Before the attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the early 1980s the IAF practiced long-range sorties as well. The principal restriction that was examined back then was the amount of fuel it would take the planes to get to Iraq and back safely. Today there are other problems.

David Bedein can be reached at dbedein@israelbehindthenews.com. His Web site is www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com

©The Bulletin 2008

Hamas. Abu Mazen and the Cease Fire

The Hamas-Israeli ceasefire agreement in Gaza (tahdi’a; lit. “calmingâ€Â), together with the decision by Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to renew the “national dialogueâ€Â with Hamas, inaugurated a new and promising phase in Hamas’s efforts to establish itself as the legitimate governing party in the Palestinian territories. For |Hamas, these developments hold out hope for a lifting of the international boycott against it and the restoration of a semblance of national unity, which was shattered by Hamas’s violent seizure of full power in Gaza one year ago.

Moreover, they may enable Hamas to begin fulfilling its commitment to rebuild Gaza’s shattered social and economic infrastructure. Progress on these fronts will in turn strengthen Hamas in its demands to play a significant role in a reorganized Palestine Liberation Organization, to which it does not currently belong. A Hamas-influenced PLO would likely then implement a change in basic national positions, particularly with regard to official Palestinian policy regarding the conflict with Israel.

Although Hamas desired a ceasefire in order to prevent a large-scale Israeli military operation in Gaza, it did not enter into it from a position of weakness. The agreement, which was acceded to by all Palestinian factions, including Fatah, was achieved after Israel withdrew its demand for the prior return of its captive soldier, while Hamas stood firm in its demand for a quid pro quo, namely, the large-scale release of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. In essence, Hamas was given the go-ahead from the PA and the smaller factions to work for the lifting of the economic siege of the Gaza Strip, the opening of the crossing points to Israel and Egypt, and the release of prisoners. The Hamas leadership believes that achieving these gains, which would be heartily welcomed by the Palestinian public, will enable the ceasefire to be lengthened indefinitely, and perhaps even extended to the West Bank.

Another reason for Hamas’s self-confidence was its successful parrying of Abu Mazen’s insistence on the removal of Hamas’s hegemony in Gaza as a condition to renewing the dialogue with it. In dropping this demand, Abu Mazen was apparently motivated by concern over the continued crumbling of Palestinian social and political structures and the widening chasm between the West Bank and Gaza. Hence, his priority during his final months of office (Presidential elections are officially scheduled for January 2009) has become the restoration of unity, before Palestinian society disintegrates entirely.

Abu Mazen’s actions were also driven by his reading of the balance of power between Hamas and Fatah, his own political standing, and Hamas’s strengthened status in the region. At the May 2008 meeting of Fatah’s “Revolutionary Councilâ€Â, Abu Mazen encountered strong resistance and a distinct lack of support from Fatah’s “old guardâ€Â, which felt that it had been distanced from the decision-making process. Council members demanded that Abu Mazen remove Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, establish a new government that would include all PLO factions, reevaluate the peace process with Israel and engage in a dialogue with Hamas. In addition, Abu Mazen is well aware of Fatah’s perilous organizational state and low public standing, which calls into question its very ability to survive. And finally, the absence of progress in the peace process has led the Palestinian public to conclude that Abu Mazen and Fatah have lost their way, and are unable to act in ways which would serve the interests of the Palestinian people and even prevent developments such as Israel’s continued settlement expansion in the West Bank. Hence, with Hamas and Israel making progress towards a ceasefire, Abu Mazen chose not to remain aloof.

At present, Hamas and Fatah are on the verge of a national dialogue, which will include the other factions as well. The process is likely to be lengthy, accompanied by internal frictions. The parties will need to address three main issues: the establishment of a unity government, control over the various security apparatuses, particularly the special military and police forces established by Hamas, and the reform of the PLO. Differences over the basic guidelines of a national unity government and the division of portfolios, particularly over the interior ministry and the security services will have to be settled. To be sure, the parties may well eventually agree to establish a government of technocrats and conclude a power-sharing arrangement regarding the security forces. However, there will be greater difficulty regarding Hamas’s demand to revamp the PLO in a way which would enable Hamas to achieve a leading position in the organization.

Hence, alongside the fragility of the ceasefire and the diminishing likelihood of Abu Mazen being able to achieve a permanent status agreement with Israel by the end of 2008 and have it approved by referendum, the expected difficulties in the intra-Palestinian dialogue will render it difficult to hold the January 2009 general elections on schedule. In the absence of political progress, and the unlikelihood of a change in American policy no matter who wins the US presidential election, Abu Mazen and the PA government may well conclude at some point that they have reached the end of the road.

The Hamas leadership is currently operating from a position of strength and a deep belief in the correctness of its policies. The widespread social and economic distress in Gaza and the continuing military confrontation with Israel over the last two years were not translated into large-scale public protest against Hamas. The majority of the Gaza population did not hold Hamas primarily responsible for the difficult situation in which they found themselves. Rather, the chief culprits, in their view, were Israel and the international community, which had imposed an economic blockade in order to force Hamas to accept their demands and alter the basic principles of their creed. Moreover, Palestinian public opinion credits Hamas with a number of achievements. They admire its steadfastness, recognize its success in becoming the governing party responsible for the Gaza district, support the new ceasefire agreement, and expect an imminent lifting of the siege and the release of prisoners. Hamas’s strengthened position contrasts sharply in the public’s eyes with Abu Mazen’s and Fatah’s abysmal failure to achieve their goals in the international arena.

Hamas aspires to be the broadest-based political movement in the Palestinian arena, one which represents Palestinian-Islamic nationalism. Its leadership views the ceasefire and the resumption of the national dialogue as means to widen its influence from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. Hence, Hamas is on the verge of registering further substantive achievements, and Palestinian history appears to have come to the end of an era, after 40 years of Fatah’s domination of national leadership under the PLO umbrella.

TEL AVIV NOTES is published with the support of the V. Sorell Foundation