Hamas opposes ‘tactical’ Palestinian statehood bid at UN

Haaretz reports:

The Islamist Hamas movement said Wednesday that President Mahmoud Abbas' plan to approach the United Nations for recognition of Palestinian statehood was a "tactical" move, part of a negotiations process, and therefore could not be backed.

The move was not based on principles and "Hamas and other factions are not part of this step and do not support it," Salah al-Bardaweel, a senior Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, told a workshop in Gaza City.

Hamas, which seized control of the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007, opposes the general line adopted by Abbas, and in particular peace negotiations with Israel.

The movement is under a Western diplomatic boycott for refusing demands to renounce violence, honor past Israeli-Palestinian agreements and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Al-Bardaweel told the workshop that the consequence of getting the UN to recognize a Palestinian state would also be recognition of Israel's boundaries.

"Going to the UN draws the borders of Israel, which was established on stolen lands and still has no borders," he said.

Abbas' UN bid, he explained, would mean that the Palestinian state would exist only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war, and not in all of historic Palestine, as Hamas wants.

Moreover, he said, once a Palestinian state is ratified, "the Palestinian resistance won't be allowed to fire one single gunshot at the Israeli occupation."

Abbas said last week that he intends to submit the Palestinian's UN bid once he arrives in New York on September 19 for the General Assembly session.

Palestinians commit (yet another) huge strategic mistake

Big news: Hamas and Fatah have agreed to form a new interim government as part of a process of "reconciliation" and a "unity deal".  Yes, not only is Hamas going to join Fatah in a unity government, that government will be lead by, who else, Abbas!

When I read that this morning I though "Hamas leaders have gone totally insane!".   Think about it:

Who is Abbas?  He is exactly *nobody*.  He is not the "elected President of the Palestinian authority" simply because his term is over and his band of thugs never allowed any other elections to take place.  Until this deal with Hamas was made his legitimacy was exactly *zero*.

What is Fatah?  It's the utterly discredited and unmasked (thanks Wikileaks!) local combined franchise of the Shin Bet and the CIA.  Hamas might as well sign a "reconciliation" deal with the Shin Bet and join a "unity" cabinet under the leadership of Yuval Diskin (or Yoram Cohen)!

What about the timing?

The timing could not be worse.  Not only are there all the signs that a new, huge,  Freedom Flotilla will attempt to break the Gaza siege this summer, but the new Egyptian Foreign Minister, Nabil al-Arabi, has even told Al-Jazeera that Egypt is making preparations to permanently open the Gaza border!

So at a time when Abbas and his band of traitors are totally discredited and despised by all, at a time when Hamas' stance in Gaza was about to be vindicated, the Hamas leadership finds nothing better to do than give the local Shabak/CIA franchise manager a new legitimacy!

Sadly, Hamas as a record of brilliant tactics followed by total strategic incompetence (just remember how it totally failed to exploit the bringing down of the Wall between Gaza and Egypt).  But this latest decision goes beyond mere incompetence - it smacks of outright treason.

All of which is made even worse by the reaction rather crazy reactions in the rest of the world.  Israel and the USA are opposing it, I don't know if they do that because they are really stupid or because really really smart, while Iran and Hezbollah approve of it - probably because criticizing the entire Palestinian leadership is impossible for them.  It's a crazy world!

Whatever may be the case, and since I am not trying to be popular with anybody, I will clearly say that this is a disaster for all the Palestinian people.  Against Israel nothing of any value has ever been obtained by compromise and/or negotiations - only by resolve and active resistance.  Sadly, in the entire Middle-East only Hezbollah has really understood this and acted accordingly.

I never had much hope for Hamas as a movement which, after all, was initially created by the Shin Bet to be a counterweight to Fatah, but now I can only conclude that until a Hezbollah-like resistance organization crystallizes in reaction to the constant compromises and betrayals of the Palestinian leaders (Hezbollah was created as a reaction against the compromises and betrayals of Amal leaders) - little real progress will be achieved in Palestine.

The Saker

Journalist discloses details of Israeli-PA security-meeting

Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank for the People's Voice

Nahom Barnea is a prominent Israeli journalist and regular columnist at the mass-circulation newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth.

On Friday, 19 September, he revealed shocking details of a recent “security coordination” meeting between Israeli and Palestinian security commanders.

Barnea, well known for his journalistic reliability, attended the meeting which took place at the Israeli occupation army’s West Bank headquarters at the settlement of Beit El near Ramallah.

The following is a verbatim translation of Barnea’s report as published in Yedeot Ahronot:

“They (the PA security commanders) arrived at the IDF headquarters Sunday night, passing through the ‘Court roadblock,’ only a 3-minute-drive from Ramallah. They drove through the road leading to the old Beit El settlement, going through the gate of the former Jordanian camp which houses the Command of the Judea and Samaria Brigade.

All of them were dressed in civilian attire with the exception of the Inspector-General of the Palestinian Police. They were eight commanders, all of them veteran Fatah leaders. This is the last chance for the generation that came from Tunis to retain their grip on power before Hamas could take over and devour everything.

The commander of the Israeli Defense Forces in the West Bank, Major-General Noam Tiv’on wanted to invite them to a meal to break the day’s fasting. However, the agenda of the encounter was disrupted for reasons having to do with the failure of the Israeli army to suppress settler riots (near Nablus) and the death of a Palestinian boy by Israeli army bullets the next day, which eventually forced the guests to break their fast at their homes.

Well they did. The discussion would have wasted a lot of time had it been carried out at the food pantry prepared by the Israeli army. Tiv’on and the head of the Israeli civil administration in the West Bank, Major-General Yoav Mordechai wanted to present to the Palestinian commanders the plan- Jenin-2 for the deployment of PA forces in City.

The Israeli commanders asked their Palestinian counterparts for their permission to allow a journalist to attend the meeting. The Palestinians concurred. In fact, I was the only journalist allowed to attend the meeting. However, because of my presence and essentially because of the sense of urgency on the Palestinian part, the meeting assumed different directions with excessive extents.

Shocking words

Contrary to conventional belief, journalists hate to be surprised. They think they know every thing and that which they don’t know is not considered especially important. I was surprised by the things that the Palestinian security commanders uttered. I was also surprised by the tone of their voices.

The gist of their argument is that a violent confrontation between Fatah and Hamas will take place in January of 2009. On the 9th of January Abu Mazen’s presidential term will expire. He is determined to stay in office until January 2010. We can’t rule out the possibility that Abu Mazen will declare the Gaza Strip a “rebellious province”

The Palestinian security commanders asked their Israeli counterparts to join them in preparing a field plan and train their forces and supply them with weapons.

I have never heard such an excessive willingness on the part of the Palestinian Authority to work with Israel, except for a small period in the Spring of 1996.

Following the meeting, I told one of the Israeli commander who was in the hall “this is just talk. Aren’t you worried that the followers of Fatah would disappear at the decisive moment as they did in Gaza?”

“No,” he said. “Prior to the Gaza events, they didn’t know what would happen to them. But now they do.”

Abu al Fath is the commander of the General Security Apparatus of the Fayyad government. It represents the main military force of the Palestinian Authority . Abu al Fath is the most senior and highest ranking officer among the heads of the Palestinian security agencies.

“There is no conflict between us,” he told the Israeli army commanders. “We have a common enemy.”

Abu al Fath commenced the meeting with a complaint about the settler rampage (near Nablus). The way he related to the riots was interesting. He went on saying that “this makes things more difficult for us, especially in dealing with ordinary Palestinians. You must have law and order just as you expect us to have law and order. I will do all I can to prevent the occurrence of operations (against you.). You realize that we are much better than before. Thanks to our operations, the Israeli army needs to carry out lesser operations.

Hamas: our common enemy

Abu al Fath went on: “ there is a huge strife going on in preparation for January, 2009. Abu Mazen is adopting the peace-line and you should bolster his position. Release juvenile prisoners, this is very important. Remove the roadblocks and dismantle the settlements. I want to ask you to allow us to deploy a regiment from Jericho to Hebron. I know there is a problem with the settlers in Hebron and the frictions spots there. I have no intention to enter these spots. The regiment will operate in the villages of Southern Hebron.

Major-General Kivon replied: “I am quite happy with what you have said. The local commanders of both sides should meet and reach an agreement on this. However, Colonel Mordechai warned the Palestinian officer, saying that “ the deployment of the regiment in Hebron should take place Friday night lest they collide with the settlers.” Abu al Fath said : “No problem. We are moving against Hamas even during the month of Ramadan.”

At this point, the head of the Fayadh government’s military intelligence, Majed Faraj began talking: “We are in the midst of a very difficult battle. There is an Arabic proverb:‘the sea is before us and the enemy is after us.’ We don’t even have a sea. We have decided to fight the battle until the end. We have decided to put all our problems on the table. Every thing is clear. No game-playing. Hamas is the enemy, and we have decided to wage an all-out war against Hamas. And I tell you there will be no dialogue with Hamas, for he who wants to kill you, kill him first. You have reached a truce with them, but we won’t do so. To be honest, we behaved differently in the past.

Faraj went on boasting: “Now we are taking care of every Hamas institution in accordance with your instructions. Lately you gave us the names of 64 institutions, and we have already dealt with fifty. Some of these institutions have been closed down, others we have changed their administrations. We have also seized their money (Israel referred to the PA 150 bank accounts suspected of belonging to terrorist organizations while the PA closed 300 other accounts).

“I have two observations: In the past we thought a thousand times before entering a mosque, but today we enter any mosque whenever deemed necessary. Don’t understand from this that you are allowed to enter the mosque. On the contrary, we can enter the mosques precisely because you don’t. We also can enter the campuses of universities, including the Islamic University in Hebron. We are making utmost efforts and even if success is not 100%, motivation is 100% “

Following Faraj’s remarks, Hazem Atallah, the Inspector-General of the Palestinian Police Forces spoke: “ Until the end of the year, we will enter into a confrontation with Hamas. Khalid Mashala said Abu Mazen’s government wouldn’t be legal after the 9th of January, hence we should bet ready for the confrontation. “

Hussein al Sheik, head of the civilian affairs department in the Fayadh government said “this is very important. Hamas doesn’t have a military power in the West Bank, but it has the power to get people onto the streets.”

Attallah addressed the Israeli commanders : I am talking about a comprehensive plan, if we enter the next year without being fully prepared, nothing will be left except arguing over who was responsible for the defeat, we, or you, or the Americans.

Mordechai assured him, saying :we will form a joint team, we will help you with the training and military gear.

The Palestinians complained that a Canadian shipment of truncheons for the police was still being withheld at the Ashdod Port. Tiv’on assured them that “we will hand it over to you.”
-------
Comment: this story proves again that Fatah is nothing but the local franchise of the Israeli security services, an "outsourced" department of the Shin Bet, and that only Hamas is interested in defending the Palestinian people: Fatah only wants two things: power and money.

The Saker

Saker interview with the Palestinian Pundit

It is a great honour and long awaited pleasure for me to interview a real expert on Palestine and the rest of the Middle-East: Tony, the author of what is definitely one of the best Palestinian blogs - Palestinian Pundit, a "must visit daily" for anybody interested in the Palestinian drama.

I have been reading Tony's posts for quite a while already (many thanks to datta for drawing my attention to it) and I had planned to interview Tony for several months already, but the situation in Palestine took such a turn for the worse that neither Tony nor I had any time left to work on an interview. Things have not improved, Palestinians are still being murdered on a daily basis by the Israeli occupation forces, and since things are only likely to get worse, I have decided not to wait any further and ask Tony for his insight about the current situation and its likely development.

I am deeply grateful to Tony for taking the time to answer my questions. I know that he is immensely busy in his professional life and that, on top of that, he still manages to be a (quasi) full time "blogging machine" (as datta once put it to me) on his 'free' time.

-------

Tony, please introduce yourself to our readers and tell us under what circumstances you decided to start a blog which became one of the most informative and interesting blogs among all the Palestinian blogs. For the sake of full disclosure, how would you define your political sympathies in the Palestinian context.

I am a Palestinian who was born in Jaffa Palestine in 1945; the family was expelled from there in 1948 when Israel was established and about 800,000 Palestinians became refugees. Grew up as a refugee in Gaza; went to college in Cairo, Egypt; came to California to do graduate work in 1967 (right after the so-called 6-day war), and stayed here since.

I have been, like many Palestinians, an outspoken defendant of Palestinian rights and I do what I can to expose Israeli crimes against the Palestinians and the US full complicity in these crimes.

Actually, I did not set up the blog. I used to frequently visit the blog of professor As’ad Abu Khalil (Angry Arab) and make various comments. I guess I was outspoken enough and made enough noise that one of the regular visitors, who happened to be Jewish but a supporter of the Palestinians, told me to start a blog. I told her that I was not interested and I had no time! She, on her own, set up the blog, and chose the name. In the beginning she used to contribute to the blog but she opted out later on. The blog was started in July 2006.

My political sympathies in the Palestinian context are secular, nationalist, pan-Arab and leftist. I am not opposed to nationalist, progressive anti-imperialist Islamic forces as long as they concentrate on fighting occupation and defend their own people from foreign intervention and domination.

Could you please outline your view of the situation in Palestine and, in particular, the situation in the West Bank about which so little is written. How strong and stable do you believe the power of Fatah to be there? Do you see a replacement of Abbas by either one of the Barghoutis (Mohammad or Marwan) something which could salvage Fatah's power in the West Bank? Does Hamas still operate as an organization in the West Bank or is it totally underground?

The situation in the West Bank is that of tightly controlled occupation with rapidly expanding colonization. The goal is to imprison the remaining Palestinians (after squeezing out as many as possible, through very repressive policies of arrests, confiscation, home demolitions, control of movement, outright terror by Zionist colonizers, etc) in a few cantons or reservations if you will.

The so-called Palestinian Authority (PA) has been fully inducted as a collaborating quisling entity which fully coordinates with the Israeli occupiers the hunting down, arrests, disarming and killing of Palestinian resistance elements. Through the so-called Oslo-process, ensuring the security of Israel is considered the key role of the PA. For that purpose the US, through its designated coordinator of security General Keith Dayton, arms, finances and trains puppet PA forces to assist the Israeli occupation. The policies of the PA in the W.B. have been very repressive, where journalists have been arrested, demonstrations and public opposition banned by lethal force, and key figures of the opposition arrested and tortured, some to death. Corruption is rampant in order to buy the loyalties of the few. The PA in the W.B. has best been described as a police state without a state.

Fatah is very fragmented and weak and many observers doubt if it will survive. The collaboration of its leadership with the occupation and their participation in the siege and starvation of fellow Palestinians in Gaza have totally discredited Fatah in the eyes of most Palestinians.

Since the Oslo ”process” and its Annapolis sequel have accomplished absolutely nothing, Abbas, the PA and Fatah who placed all their bets on negotiations only, are living their worst nightmares. Many observers believe that the PA is on the verge of collapse. Israel and the US might decide to keep some rump quisling entity as a replacement, but who knows. If the PA faces collapse, USrael will seek to find some younger “leader” who could be sold to the Palestinians as their new “leader.” I believe that Marwan Barghouti, who is in Israeli jail serving more than one life sentence will be that figure. Some Israeli leaders have been calling for his release; why now?

Hamas is openly fought in the W.B. by the PA, and even charities and orphanages have been closed down and their assets confiscated. There is still a lot of support for Hamas in the W.B. but the armed elements remaining had to go underground to survive.

The Hamas operation of bringing down the Wall was nothing short of brilliant and, for a while, it looked that it would be impossible to bring it back up and that Mubarak would risk his own political future if he tried to do this. Alas, he did bring it right back with and without any visible Hamas response. Why is this? Why did Hamas not fight as hard as can be to keep the Wall down? Has the Hamas leadership been corrupted/coopted by the Empire?

As you said toppling the wall with Egypt was brilliant and the jail break was breathtaking and unprecedented. Why was the momentum not maintained? One can speculate:

1. Egypt made some promises to buy time and I think that some within Hamas were a bit naive and bought those promises. After gaining the needed time to re-close the border, Egypt reneged on the promises.
2. The people in Gaza, Hamas included, are exhausted not just by the siege but by the relentless Israeli attacks which lately killed over 130 Palestinians in less than a week. So, Hamas needed a respite.
3. The US has asked Egypt to play a role in order to calm the situation between Hamas and Israel a bit. There was a concern that with the images of slaughtered Palestinians being shown day after day by Al-Jazeera, among others, that there was some risk of boiling over in the Arab street. The US wants to line up the Arab street behind its plans to attack Iran. So, Hamas was playing the game through Egypt of trying to arrange a calming down with Israel. Therefore, Hamas could not confront Egypt at the same time that Egypt was “mediating.”
4. Part of the agreement involved in a possible ceasefire with Israel is the re-opening of the Rafah crossing. This has been a Hamas demand. There has been talk of a trial opening soon with the crossing operating 3 days a week. It remains to be seen, if it is another empty promise.
5. Hamas can mobilize the people and storm the new barrier again, if all of these maneuvers lead to nothing. I don’t believe that Hamas has been corrupted or coopted. One of Hamas’ strengths is its collective leadership and decision making.

What is Hamas' game plan? What does Hamas hope to achieve with the continuing Qassam attacks on Sderot? Why is Hamas willing to risk an Israeli invasion of Gaza (and the inevitable arrest, torture and mass-murder of Hamas officials by Fatah thugs) for the sake of rocketing Sderot, but is not willing to openly engage Mubarak's forces to keep the Wall down?

There is a big difference between Hamas shelling Israeli targets and Hamas fighting the Egyptian forces. The first has contributed to the support that Hamas is receiving as the main party leading the fight against the occupation. The second would do just the opposite: it would discredit Hamas in the Arab street and be a gift to those who want to portray Hamas as agent of Iran and who is fighting fellow Arabs rather than Israel; Hamas would never do that.

Hamas, on a smaller scale is trying to copy Hizbullah through the use of simple rockets. In time, the hope is that these would become more effective. Hamas is not using the rockets without a plan. When Israel scales down its attacks, so does Hamas. Hamas is trying, by using the rockets, to deter Israel to the extent possible.

Whether Israel fully invades Gaza is a decision independent of the issue of Qassams. The Qassams are just an excuse. The problem of invading Gaza is what to do next? Israel occupied Gaza before and it could not control the situation. Now it will be much harder. Also, Israel does not want to be responsible for feeding 1.5 million Palestinians, and wants to maintain the illusion that the occupation has ended.

Do you think the Israelis will invade Gaza and what do you predict will be the consequences of such an invasion?

I think that a full scale invasion and occupation of Gaza is directly linked to a bigger question: that of the US and Israeli plans towards Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. If and when a decision is made to attack Iran, which has to be preceded by an attempt to eliminate Hizbullah in Lebanon, then it would be the time to fully invade Gaza. Until that time, the American plan is to keep the Arab street focused on Iran and not on Israeli slaughtering of Palestinians. But after the attack on Iran/Hizbullah/Syria is underway, then a full invasion of Gaza is quite likely.

After such invasion and occupation of Gaza, USrael is likely to set up some NATO/UN force in Gaza so that Israeli forces would withdraw. Similar to what happened in south Lebanon. In such an invasion, total elimination of Hamas and its leadership would likely to be a key objective. For Hamas to survive, and it will, it will go underground. By doing so, Hamas could actually become more effective.

What do you know about the situation among half a million plus Palestinians with Israeli citizenship living inside Israel proper? Are they sympathies with Fatah or Hamas? Why is there no visible resistance or show of solidarity on their part with their fellow-Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank? Do you believe that Hamas can establish itself among these Israeli Palestinians as an organization capable of organizing any type of resistance?

The situation of the Palestinians within Israel itself (so-called Israeli Arabs), who actually number about a million (20%), is quite complicated. It is not the arena for either Hamas or Fatah to operate in, for obvious reasons. There is an independent and separate Islamic organization that seeks to speak for those Palestinians and to defend their rights. They have to walk a very narrow path lest the Israeli government accuse them of treason and to try them or expel them, as happened with Knesset member Azmi Bishara.

The best contribution of these Palestinians is to struggle for their own rights as equal citizens in a secular, democratic state for all of its citizens. Ultimately, the Palestinians in the occupied areas will find themselves in the same boat, with the demise of the two-state solution, as the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Then the struggle becomes one for both groups which is the struggle for one secular, democratic state for all of its citizens, Jewish and Arab.

The Palestinians in Israel do what they can to help the Palestinians in the occupied areas. They demonstrate in solidarity and speak out. They have organized some medical and other relief for Gaza recently as well as for the W.B. before. They challenge Israel’s courts and defend Palestinians in the occupied territories. However, within the racist state of Israel there is a limit of what they can do.

It is out of the question for Israel to allow Hamas to organize and operate among the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

How do you assess the current prospects for war in the rest of the Middle-East? The Israelis have openly bombed Syria, they have murdered Mughniyeh (whether with or without Syrian help), Lebanon is at the edge of another civil war, the USA is arming the Sunnis in Iraq and Admiral Fallon has been retired due to his opposition to an attack on Iran. What does all this mean for the Palestinian people? Do they see risks or opportunities here? What do you expect Hamas to do, if anything, in case of a war involving Israel?

I personally believe that Israel wants to attack Iran and to eliminate Hizbullah and Hamas as viable organizations. Within the US there are those who share this goal and a few (like Fallon) who do not. Israel will likely get its way and drag the US into such an attack. Hizbullah will be attacked first because it represents a first strike capability for Iran. There is a question mark about Syria. So far, Syria has avoided engaging the Israelis militarily; even when a Syrian site was bombed recently. That was humiliating for Syria. A similar thing happened in the summer of 2006 when scores of Syrian workers were killed by Israeli aircraft bombing Lebanon, very close to the Syrian border. Again, Syria did nothing. So there is a question of whether Syria would again stay out if a bigger attack on Hizbullah is attempted this time.

Hizbullah will retaliate for Mughniyeh, for sure. Whether this will trigger the USraeli attack on Hizbullah is a good question. Some believe that the assassination itself was a provocation to trigger such a war.

Iran would not be involved directly if the attack focuses on Hizbullah alone. However, an incident will be created to implicate Iran and trigger a US attack on Iran. I am convinced that Israeli leaders do not want to see Iran as a competing regional power.

How does Hamas fare in all of this? As I said earlier, the USraeli objective is to eliminate any resistance and to kill the very idea of resistance. Besides the Iraqi resistance, Hizbullah and Hamas represent the only other resistance. To finalize the total dispossession of the Palestinians an attempt to eliminate Hamas will have to be made.

Hamas and the Palestinians see the solution for the Palestinians dependent on the larger Arab context. In other words the Palestinian struggle combines with the resistance in Lebanon and in Iraq, because the enemy is the same. Hamas resists but also is buying time; it is not suicidal. The dynamics in the area will bring changes we can’t clearly see now. For example the situation in Egypt is precarious, with bread riots breaking out and a lot of discontent with the regime’s oppression of its opponents, especially the Muslim Brothers. The situation in Jordan is not much better with rampant inflation, high unemployment and open collaboration by the puppet king. Opposition forces (again mostly Muslim Brothers) have been demanding the closure of the Israeli embassy and abrogation of the treaty with Israel. So, a new large scale war involving Iran/Syria/Hizbullah/Hamas has many possible repercussions.

Why does Hamas persist in holding Gilad Shalit? What can be gained by a detention which is clearly illegal whether under the terms of the law of war (which apply during an international conflict) or human rights law (which apply during an internal conflict). Would a release of Gilat Shalit not serve to give Hamas the moral high ground? Is such a detention legal under Islamic law?

Shalit was a captured Israeli soldier. His unit was involved in shelling Gaza at that time. So, he is a clear prisoner of war. In contrast, Israel holds about 11,000 Palestinians, most of them are civilians kidnapped in the middle of the night. That includes 46 Palestinian MPs!

How can you say that holding Shalit is illegal, or un-Islamic? This is not true at all. As I said he is a prisoner of war, to be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners if and when Israel agrees to negotiate terms. Releasing him without release of at least some Palestinian prisoners would amount to treason on the part of Hamas, in my opinion, not taking the high moral ground, as you put it.

Hamas is a majority Sunni organization. Have the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood or Saudi Salafism penetrated into the Hamas worldview and policies? What is Hamas' position concerning Shia Muslims or, probably more relevant in the Palestinian context, Arab Christians? Does Hamas share the strong hostility towards the Shia and the Christians which is so obvious among the followers of Sayyid Qutb or Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab at-Tamimi ? Are there Christians inside Hamas and, if yes, what is their status?

Hamas’ roots and connections are to the Muslim Brotherhood and not Saudi Salafis. Hamas has a view that all Palestinians are in this together, including Christians. Hamas has gone out of its way to protect Christians and their churches and properties in Gaza. I do believe that Hamas’s leadership is enlightened and inclusive. I don’t think that there are Christians in Hamas, but in the last PLC elections, Hamas supported at least one independent, Christian candidate.

Hamas does not play on the Sunni-Shia divide; to the contrary it believes that all Arabs and Muslims should pool their resources and efforts to fight the common enemy and not each other. Hamas has excellent relations with the Shiite Hizbullah and has received at least some support from Iran. Hamas welcomes support from all those willing to help.

The debate on the "One State" versus "Two State" solution has recently heated up with Micheal Neumann, Jonathan Cook and others weighing in. Has Hamas taken a clear stand on this issue and, if yes, what is it? What about yourself, which side of this debate do you support?

Without using labels, I interpret Hamas’ position as supporting both solutions. While that sounds contradictory, it is not. What Hamas is saying is that it would accept a long term Hudna (truce) during which time a two-state solution, with a real independent Palestinian state, would be acceptable. After that, Hamas is calling for ultimately dismantling the racist, Zionist state, paving the way for one democratic state for all, including Palestinian Jews willing to live as equal in one Palestine.

While a one state solution is being advocated more and more, it is meaningless without dismantling Zionism. That dismantling is going to take time, and it would be unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to endure under the present horrible conditions. So, if a two-state solution can emerge in the interim, then that would be more just and humane for the Palestinians, but not as a permanent and just solution. That would not solve the problems of the refugees and their right of return nor would it address the status of Palestinians within Israel. Those issues can only be resolved within a one-state solution that would evolve after dismantling Zionism. This is my view.

Survey: Haniyeh more popular than Abbas in PA

By Reuters (via Ha'aretz)

Israel Defense Forces attacks in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip have boosted the popularity of the Islamist group's leader Ismail Haniyeh among Palestinians in that territory and in the West Bank, according to a poll released Monday.

The survey by the West Bank-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research showed that if new presidential elections were held, Haniyeh would receive 47 percent of the vote compared with 46 percent for President Mahmoud Abbas of the rival Fatah faction.

The figures represented a sharp strengthening of Haniyeh's popularity. He served as prime minister in the Hamas-led government Abbas dismissed after Hamas seized the Gaza Strip from Fatah in June.

But the survey also found that Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, imprisoned in Israel and seen as a possible Abbas successor, would defeat Haniyeh by a clear margin. The poll gave him 57 percent of the vote, compared to Haniyeh's 38 percent.

The center's previous poll, in December, gave Gaza-based Haniyeh just 37 percent of a potential presidential vote compared with 56 percent for Abbas, whose peace efforts with Israel are opposed by Hamas.

The latest poll was conducted shortly after Israel ended an offensive in the Gaza Strip in early March that killed more than 120 Palestinians, almost half of them were identified as civilians.

Israel said the operation was aimed at stopping cross-border rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.

According to the survey, Hamas's breaching of the Gaza Strip's Rafah border crossing with Egypt in January also contributed to Haniyeh's popularity among Palestinians.

"These developments managed to present Hamas as successful in breaking the siege and as a victim of Israeli attacks," commentary accompanying the poll said.

Lack of progress in Abbas's peace negotiations with Israel also gave Hamas a boost, the poll indicated.

The survey found that if new parliamentary elections were to take place, Hamas would receive 35 percent of the vote and Fatah 42 percent, compared to 46 percent for Fatah and 34 percent for Hamas in an opinion poll in January.

The current survey polled 1,270 Palestinians in Arab East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It had a margin of error of three percentage points.

Hamas and Fatah far apart ahead of Yemeni mediation bid

Meanwhile, delegations from rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah will travel to Yemen this week to discuss reconcilation, but the groups' leaders will not attend the talks, officials said on Monday.

The groups will meet separately with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, but the absence of Hamas leader-in-exile Khaled Meshal and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah casts doubt on any success in ending hostilities between the factions.

Hamas Islamists routed Fatah forces to seize control of the Gaza Strip in June. After the takeover, Abbas dismisssd a Hamas-led government and appointed a new Western-backed cabinet in the occupied West Bank.

Officials loyal to Abbas said the Yemeni initiative calls on Hamas to hand over control of Gaza and agree to early presidential and parliamentary elections, conditions endorsed by Abbas but rejected by Hamas.

Meshal was initially expected to lead the Islamist group's delegation, but a Hamas spokesman said the Damascus-based leader's deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouq, would be sent instead.

The spokesman gave no reason for the change.

Senior Abbas aide Azzam al-Ahmed will head the Fatah team.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said Hamas would only be willing to discuss reconciliation with Fatah in a "non-conditional dialogue".

"We will respect any agreements that would result from that non-conditional and open meeting, if it takes place," Barhoum said.

Egypt Closes Rafah Border

Al-Manar TV reports:

Egyptian and Hamas security forces closed the border between Gaza and Egypt on Sunday, nearly two weeks after resistance fighters blew open the frontier amid as Israeli occupation blockade, a security source and witnesses said. "Security forces have starting closing the border," an Egyptian security source said. "No more Palestinians are being allowed in."

One gate remained open to allow Palestinians to return to Gaza and Egyptians to return home. Other than people returning home, no pedestrians or vehicles were being allowed to cross. Hundreds of thousands of people have streamed across the border since Palestinian fighters blew open and bulldozed large sections of the barrier wall on January 22 after a near week-long Israeli occupation lockdown of the territory.

On Saturday, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar, who had returned from talks in Cairo, said his movement would close the border in cooperation with the Egyptian authorities, adding that Cairo has promised to ease the plight of the Palestinians in the Strip by opening the Rafah crossing.

During the talks Hamas officials asked that Egypt provide the Strip with the essential supplies it currently receives through the occupied territories. The Hamas officials made it clear during their talks with Omer Suleiman, Egypt's chief of intelligence, they did not expect this supply line to be humanitarian assistance but commercial deliveries for which they would pay. Hamas sources said the Egyptians did not reject the proposal and promised to consider the option.

However, senior Fatah officials in Ramallah said that Egypt would be hard put to accept the Hamas proposal because of the opposition of the Palestinian Authority and the United States.

Hamas Prime Minister in the Strip Ismail Haniyeh said Saturday that economic ties with Egypt must be strengthened to break free from Israel. "Since the day we were elected [Palestinian national elections February 2006] we have said that we want to progress toward breaking our economic ties with Israel," he said. He stressed that "Egypt is in a much better position [than Israel] to meet the needs of the Gaza Strip."

Hamas Warns of Israeli Conspiracy over Rafah Crossing

Al-Manar TV reports:

The Islamic Resistance Movement of Hamas has dismissed as an Israeli-led conspiracy PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's proposal to deploy his own, Western-trained forces at the Rafah crossing along with the EU monitors.

Palestinian Authority said Monday that it had reached a deal with Egypt to take control of the Gaza border. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu-Zuhri dismissed the proposal, calling it an "Israeli-led international conspiracy with the participation of some regional parties" which would exclude them from controlling the border. "We tell all parties that we will not allow the return of old conditions at the crossing," Abu-Zuhri said.

Interim Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad asked Hamas not to "interfere", saying "they should just simply get out of the way and allow this to happen''.

In Rafah, however, it was Hamas forces that were very much in control, working closely with Egyptian border guards and riot police to seal one of the three breaches and organize traffic at the other two. "There has been continuous and direct cooperation with Egyptian security officials over the last couple of days,'' said a Hamas security official. "They asked us to only allow trucks to enter and not civilian cars to make the operation as orderly as possible".

Hamas insists on having a say in the administration of the border, the opening of which has given it a tremendous lift among inhabitants of Gaza who have been sealed off from the outside world for the past two years. "Hamas affirms that the time of (Israeli) siege is over, and it will not allow any party to bring back our people to the cage,'' Abu Zuhri said.

Taher Nunu, another Hamas government spokesman, earlier said that "no one can exclude the (Hamas) government here from the crossing arrangements or any other issue. This is the legitimate government''.

Some form of agreement on who controls the border may come on Wednesday when a Hamas delegation will hold separate meetings with Egyptian officials in Cairo. A delegation of Hamas, representing the Islamic movement's politburo Chief and the government based in Gaza, will visit Egypt Wednesday for discussions over border crossing points, the Hamas spokesman said Monday. "The visit comes upon an Egyptian invitation and following contacts between the movement and the Egyptian leadership," Abu Zuhri said.

Representatives of the Palestinian Authority will not participate in the talks because they refuse to deal with Hamas. Abbas plans to run Gaza crossings but excluding Hamas in the process. Abbas' plan adopts a US-brokered deal, signed in November 2005, to open Rafah crossing on the Gaza-Egypt borders with European Union monitoring as the third party and pro-Abbas security services taking control of the Palestinian side of the passages.

But Abu Zuhri said his movement endorses "a new mechanism and new arrangements to open the crossing," stressing that the international agreement on Rafah "was something from the past." "What we need is a Palestinian-Egyptian crossing point... Hamas will present its vision in this regard to Egypt," Abu Zuhri added.

Israel's policy in Gaza: at least as evil as it is self-defeating

Israel's policy towards the Gaza issue is at least as phenomenally stupid as it is evil. In fact, I consider it a perfect case study in Neocon short-term thinking. Let's take a look at the context, at what has happened, at what is going on now and at where all this leads.

The main, over-arching, issue Israel, as a self-described "Jewish state", is facing today is not terrorism or Iranian nukes but demographics. Israel, as the last openly racist state on the planet, considers it vital to keep a Jewish majority within its borders. This is why a council of rabbis gets to decide who qualifies as "Jew" and who does not, and why the so-called law of return makes any Jew on the planet eligible for relocation to Israel and Israeli citizenship (even if this Jews is non-religious, does not speak Hebrew or Yiddish, and does not care in the least about Israel) while those Arabs who were born in today's Israel and who were expelled from their homes and towns are not allowed to return even though such a right is enshrined in international law. The problem is that a full 20 percent of the Israeli population is not Jewish and that the Palestinian birth rate is much higher (both in the Occupied Territories and in Israel proper) than among Jews.

The Israeli elites came up with a two-tiered solution to this issue: first, an Apartheid-like system was set up inside Israel to deprive the non-Jews from most of their civil and political rights; second, Israel withdrew from Gaza and agreed to a "two state solution".

This is what can be called the "Two Walls" policy: the creation of a legal "invisible wall" inside Israel (Apartheid) and the simultaneous creation of a visible wall separating Israel from a series of Palestinian Bantustans under tight Israeli control.

While Israel could unilaterally withdraw from Gaza because it is an isolated and contiguous piece of land in the south of the country, a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank is not an option: there are too many settlements, "Jews-only" roads, natural resources and military positions in the West Bank to allow the Israelis to leave. A system of Bantustans could ONLY be achieved if an Israeli withdrawal was negotiated with some kind of compliant Palestinian authority willing to do Israel's bidding. Enter Fatah.

Over the years Fatah transformed itself from a liberation movement to a collaborationist force, a kind of "Palestinian franchise of the Israeli Shin Bet". The Fatah leadership is amazingly corrupt, even by Middle-Eastern standards, and more than willing to do anything Israel tells is as long as it is allowed to remain in power. As a result, Fatah and Israel now really need each other: Fatah to remain in power, and Israel to put a Palestinian face to its occupation, of course, but even more so to negotiate a two state solution acceptable to Israel.

For all its other faults, of which there are many, Hamas will never agree to the Bantustanization of the West Bank. So the "Two Walls" policy is totally predicated on keeping Fatah in power in the West Bank at any cost. Should the Fatah regime collapse in the West Bank the entire edifice of Israel survival as a racist state would be at risk.

In this context, the policy chosen by Israel in Gaza is baffling by its boundless stupidity: by totally refusing to deal with Hamas and by blockading Gaza and creating a humanitarian disaster Israel has made the open collaboration of Abbas with the "Jewish state" politically impossible. Things are now getting so much out of control that, according to Arab news reports, Abbas is considering resigning.

In contrast, the Hamas policy in Gaza has proven nothing short of brilliant. By overthrowing Fatah and thus freeing Gaza from Israeli control Hamas made it possible for the Palestinians to sustain a campaign of Kassam missile strikes (directed mainly, but not only, against the Israeli town of Sderot). These cheap missiles, which are worse than useless in a military sense, have proven a fantastically powerful political weapon which now threatens to bring down the Abbas-Olmert alliance and, therefore, the entire Israeli plan on how to solve the Palestinian issue.

What an irony indeed, that the most powerful and bloated military and security apparatus in the Middle-East, backed by an imperial superpower, has had its most vital policies totally foiled by homemade rockets which no army in the world would ever want to have, even for free!

How did the "Jewish state" ever get itself in such a situation?! By its boundless arrogance, by its utter contempt for "the Arabs", by its mantrically repeated belief that "the Arabs only understand force" and by its racist delusion that the "dumb Arabs" would never be able to outsmart the presumably brilliant Jewish mind.

Israel is now truly facing an existential threat, at least as the last racist state on the face of the earth: that threat is its own boundless and self-defeating arrogance, further exacerbated by a phenomenally incompetent leadership.

There can be no doubt that Olmert has proven himself to be the single worst Israeli leader ever (the fact that he was ehtusiastically supported by the single worst President in US history did not help, of course). Now that is has become painfully obvious that everything Olmert ever did failed, the situation is becoming extremely dangerous for the entire region.

God willing, Olmert and Dubya will just sit out the rest of their time and we can only hope that the publication of the Winograd report at the end of the month will result in Olmert's resignation, although none of the Israeli political leaders likely to succeed him look too promising either (and some look outright deranged, like Avigdor Lieberman).

Alas, a change in leadership and political course in Israel is not something very likely. I consider it much more likely that Israel will re-occupy Gaza. It will be packaged with the usual rhetoric about "self-defense", "anti-terrorism", "restoration of law and order" and "reinstatement of the only democratic and legitimate political Palestinian authority" (Fatah). It is likely to be a bloody, but short operation, supported by Fatah goons who will enter Gaza right behind the IDF and whose return to power will herald a new reign of terror against the resistance to Israel.

Needless to say, that would be as bloody as it would be useless as it would kill any prospects for a "two state" solution negotiated with the Fatah regime in Ramallah which, being even more hated than today, will become as dependent on Israeli forces to protect it as any Jewish settlement.

Olmert is too weak to seriously negotiate, and Dubya is too stupid to put pressure on him (most definitely not in an election year anyway). Hamas will not back down from its highly successful strategy, and Fatah cannot sustain an overt collaboration with Israel in these circumstances. Time is running out, the situation in Gaza is beyond catastrophic and political pressure is mounting on Israel to stop treating Gaza like the biggest open air concentration camp in the world. This is why Hassan Nasrallah is quite correct when he warns that "Gaza has entered a danger circle" and that the Palestinians there "should take extreme caution": an invasion of Gaza is probably imminent.

Why Annapolis is yet another colossal Neocon miscalculation

The great Annapolis Peace Conference has resulted in exactly nothing. This is not the opinion of Hamas, or Hezbollah, but the opinion of Ghaith al-Omari, legal adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who, according to CNN, declared:

The Israeli-Palestinian statement read by President Bush at the start of Tuesday's peace summit in Annapolis, Maryland, amounted to a "public relations gimmick". "The statement has a shelf life of two days," he said. "There's nothing new in it". Amazingly, he also added that "events will happen in the next two days that could change everything".

Really? Like what? Maybe the biggest Palestinian faction, Hamas, will be invited to join in the negotiation? Or maybe the USA will actually try to get Olmert to start respecting international law? Hardly.

Here is what Ismail Haniya, Prime Minister of Palestine and Hamas leader, had to say about this so-called "peace conference":



Clearly, the Palestinians have been totally betrayed (yet again) by the leaders of all the countries which showed up at this conference, including Syria, and the Palestinians now fully realize that there is only one country which cares about them and who will stand by them: Iran.

Iran, of course, is what this conference was really all about. Annapolis was little more than an Imperial get together to get everybody on the same tune, hence Syria's presence. There is no other possible explanation for the truly bizarre Syrian idea of sending diplomats to talk peace with Israel right after being bombed, however unsuccessfully and uselessly, by the Israeli Air Force. No - Syria showed up with the sole aim to be told by the Empire's representatives how they need to behave when the aggression against Iran takes place, and that the Syrians better listen, or else...

Sure - at the end of the conference some kind of grand statement will be made and everybody will declare it a historic first step. Still, besides an official Syrian sell-out there is very little that this conference will achieve. Except maybe one thing maybe:

Annapolis will be yet another colossal Neocon miscalculation. By 'squeezing' all the Imperial stooges of the Middle-East into one room for a photo op, the Neocons are literally pushing the Palestinians into the warm embrace of Tehran who now stands alone in defense of the basic right of the Palestinian people. At times one could be forgiven for wondering whether the Neocons are not paid agents of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence (just kidding).

The Neocons' short-sighted policies removed Iran's two worst enemies (Saddam and the Taliban) and essentially handed Iraq over to Iran. Likewise, in Afghanistan, the real power behind the Gucci-wearing "Mayor of Kabul", Karzai, are Iran's Tadjik, Uzbek and Hazara warlords (the other power behind them is Russia). In Lebanon, by forcing the Syrian's to withdraw and with the utterly insane war of 2006 the Neocons have made Hezbollah the most popular and powerful force in the country. Thanks to the GWOT (Global War on Terror) oil prices are through the roof, which greatly helps Iran (not to mention Russia and Venezuela). Now the Neocons are pushing the Sunni Hamas and the rest of the Palestinians who are not doing the bidding of Olmert straight into Iran's sphere of influence. It also makes Iran (and Hezbollah) look heroically noble in the eyes of "Muslim street' all over the Middle-East.

Right now it looks like the circle is closing in on Tehran, but after the Empire suffers yet another strategic defeat in its war against Iran (and that is inevitable as I explained in a previous article) it will become clear that the Annapolis Conference was just another strategic blunder of a clueless and increasingly hapless Empire.

Peace and its discontents: the Israeli takeover

Commentary taken from the blog "Lenin's tomb":

Israel and Palestinians commit to peace trumpets The Guardian, with a sick-making portrait of Bush, Olmert and Abbas holding hands. How's that commitment working so far? Well, let's not forget that having launched a 'civil war' against Hamas and used Dahlan's goons to foment war in Gaza on behalf of Israel, Mahmoud Abbas supports Israel's war on the Gaza strip. There is no 'peace' coming here. Abbas is turning Fatah into the armed wing of capitulation.

Previous peace efforts by Fatah, however limited and corrupted, were at least seriously attempting to get something out of Israel, a stretch of continuous land with Olive Trees on it and water running, the dismantling of settlements, demilitarization of the West Bank, something. Now, with settlements more in abundance than ever, with Israel's occupation expanding instead of contracting, with daily aggression against the Palestinian population, Abbas offers himself as Israel's agent. The talks now taking place are about talks that may take place in the future, that may at some point result in an idea, then a concept, then a series of hastily drawn diagrams, then a hint about a possible settlement. There is no prospect of even a remotely legitimate settlement emerging from this charade. Olmert is hasty with vague intimations about bold moves, but Israel's colonisation of the West Bank continues apace. The only promise from today that is genuine is the one from Abbas that he will take apart "terrorist" organisations, meaning rival political groups. So today, as part of Abbas' own 'war on terror', Palestinians in the West Bank who were demonstrating that they were not partial to this Annapolis hoax, were attacked with one killed, and a reporter trying to cover the demo was roughed up by Abbas' men.

This isn't exactly new, which is one of the reasons why Fatah lost the elections in early 2006. The absence of democratic credentials from these talks, led by an America president who prates ceaselessly of democracy, is striking. In fact, none of the three men meeting today has a popularity rating higher than 30%. No deal they negotiate, even if one were forthcoming, could carry the remotest popular mandate. However, that's hardly the point. The talks, aside from involving a temporary tilt toward Syria to isolate Iran, are continuing the coup process launched after Hamas' electoral victory. This is a takeover, not a makeover.

An interview with Marwan Barghouthi

This interview was originally published in Yedioth Ahronoth in Hebrew; it has been translated by Diana Buttu of The Institute for Middle East Understanding.

The moment that Abbas officially announces his resignation, even if I am in prison, I will put forward my candidacy for President (of the Palestinian Authority) and I will win.

This is what Marwan Barghouthi said from his cell - number 28, section 3 - during an exclusive interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, later republished in the Al-Quds newspaper as its lead story.

The imprisoned Palestinian leader has spent 5 years in an Israeli prison and there are many awaiting his announcement [to run as President of the Palestinian Authority]; not just in Ramallah, Gaza or Nablus but in wider circles, including within the office of Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel. Barghouthi asserts that the possibility of his release is more likely now than in any period in the past.


On his release:
Q: In your opinion, when do you think that you will be released from prison?
A: There has been talk about releasing me since the first day of my arrest. One time they said that they would release me in exchange for the release of Azzam Azzam from an Egyptian prison. Then they said that they would release me in exchange for releasing [Jonathan] Pollard from an American prison. Now they are talking about releasing me in exchange for Gilad Shalit but the negotiations have been difficult. Despite all of these statements, I am entering the sixth year of my imprisonment and I am still hopeful that my issue will be resolved in which my release comes in exchange for the release of Shalit, who will released in exchange for [Palestinian political] prisoners, including political leaders. I am optimistic and firmly believe that a prisoner exchange will happen sooner rather than later.

Q: Do you believe that Abu Mazen is doing his best to secure your release?
A: Definitely and I am convinced of that. I am assured that he has exerted a great deal of effort to secure the release of a large number of prisoners and that he has raised the issue in all of his meetings. The Palestinian people have much to gain from my release as well as the release of all prisoners. I am optimistic and I know that I will be released. It is just a question of time

Marwan Barghouthi was sentenced on 6 June 2004 – the day of his 45th birthday – to 5 life sentences plus forty years under the charge of participating in four [military] operations: in the Sea Food restaurant in Tel Aviv, in the shopping mall in Malha, Jerusalem, at a bus stop in [the settlement of] Pisgat Ze'ev and on Jerusalem road in [the settlement of Ma'ale Adumim] in which 5 Israelis were killed. Two years prior, Barghouthi was accused of being involved in 37 [military] operations, however, an Israeli district court in Tel-Aviv decided that he could only be tried for those [military] operations that he was personally involved in. He was charge with murder, attempted murder and involvement in a terrorist organization.

On the First "Truce":
Barghouthi has, over the course of the past four years, become a powerful political figure in internal politics. In 2003, he was responsible for attaining the first truce (Hudna) and later the second truce. He played an instrumental role in the election of Mahmoud Abbas as the Palestinian President and he worked to obtain an agreement of all Palestinian factions to ensure that there was no firing [upon Israeli settlers and soldiers] during the Israeli disengagement. He was also behind the Prisoners’ Document that outlined 18 points of agreement between Hamas and Fatah and which later served to form the national unity government headed by Ismail Haniyeh. He was one of the authors of the Mecca Agreement between Abu Mazen and Khaled Meshal which ended with Hamas's control over the Gaza Strip. He recently participated in the formation of the emergency government headed by Dr. Salam Fayyad.

It was not by accident that Yuval Diskin, head of the [Israeli] Shabak, said that Barghouthi plays a moderating role from prison. Increasing are the voices in Israel of those who believe that Barghouthi is a Palestinian leader who must be reckoned with. These voices do not only belong to the Israeli left. Gideon Ezra has said, "I have met with him more than once and he is not a lover of Israel – and no one expects this of him – but I think that if they release him, he will support the opposition to Hamas. I was in the minority asking for his release without any result because all of the decisions are taken by the Shabak, the government and even Abu Mazen doesn’t believe that [he will oppose Hamas]."

And with this the issue of his release cannot be divorced from reality: when we speak of the release of Gilad Shalit, Barghouthi's name appears on Hamas's list of prisoners to be exchanged. His name also appears on the short list but this requires a political decision. This is not discussed openly but it is clear that when they sign any agreement with Abu Mazen he will need tremendous support to convince the Palestinian people of the agreement. This choice has become more relevant with the international conference that will take place in November in Washington, DC. Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State, is now convinced that Barghouthi is needed to support Abu Mazen's position and the request [for his release] sits on Ehud Olmert's desk.

On elections:
Barghouthi believes that there is a third means of being released from his life sentences: he is prepared, from within prison, to take on the role of president through democratic elections [even while in prison]. He is convinced that if he wins it will cause a great deal of international, domestic and Israeli pressure to release him.

It is not comfortable for Israeli authorities to see a new Palestinian leader imprisoned in an Israeli prison: it will be embarrassing for Israel. For this reason, the Israeli authorities have prevented interviews with him inside Israeli prisons. This interview was done through the assistance of his lawyer. We sent the questions to him through Khader Shkirat [his lawyer] and in this difficult way we cannot challenge him on his answers. We could not ask follow-up questions. But, through his answers we can understand a few things about his political opinions and the personal life of a man who has, for the last few years, been considered the upcoming leader in the entity next to Israel.

On Being a Life Line:

Barghouthi is considered, in the eyes of many within Fatah, to be a personal life line to respond to Hamas’s takeover of Gaza. The old members of Fatah, consisting of the Tunis crowd (Sheikhs), view the matter differently: they fear that the new generation will run the show and will isolate them from political life in a year and a half's time. This was confirmed a month and a half ago during a meeting of the Fatah Central Committee in which it became clear that Abu Mazen's new ally is Abu Maher (Ahmed Ghaneim).

Perhaps Abu Mazen does not see Barghouti as his ally but he needs him in order to face difficulties such as the disintegration of Fatah, the reconstruction of the institutions of the Palestinian Authority and the difficult decisions he must take.

Barghouthi says, "I am not in anyone's pocket. I was not in Arafat's pocket nor will I be in Abu Mazen's pocket. I am in the pocket of the Palestinian people. I am convinced that the generation that grew up under Israeli occupation, that participated in the first and second intifadas, that can understand the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be [the individuals who] lead."

On Abu Maher:
Q: Does Abu Mazen want to go around you and therefore has appointed Abu Maher his successor?
A: Abu Maher was supposed to return [to Palestine] with the late Abu Ammar [Yasser Arafat] but he was opposed to Oslo and he preferred to stay in Tunis. I applaud each person who wants to return and Abu Maher is one of the old members of Fatah so I applaud his return.

When I asked Barghouthi about the coup in Gaza, he became angry and said, "Hamas stabbed the Palestinian [people] in the back. Hamas's coup over the legitimate authority of Abu Mazen was a big strategic error that destroyed all possibility for cooperation with Fatah. The coup took place against the national unity government and against Palestinian unity. The responsibility for a divided Palestinian people rests entirely with Hamas. It is necessary to undo these measures and restore legitimate authority with Abu Mazen before there is any dialogue. The road to restarting dialogue is closed in this period."

Q: After you cooperated with Hamas and believed the slogan "partners in blood, partners in decision-making" were you surprised by the coup in Gaza?
A: It was a surprise and I never believed that Hamas could act in such a manner. This is a knife stab to partnership in the struggle and democratic partnership and national unity. This is incredibly painful and difficult and it is not just Hamas that will suffer but the Palestinian people and their unity. This has turned into a disaster for the Palestinian cause.

On Hamas:
Q: Do you see that there is a danger of Hamas also taking over the West Bank?
A: After this bitter experience in Gaza, it is important not to underestimate any possibility. For this reason, it is important to undertake reform of the Palestinian security forces and to put it under a unified command and in particular a strategic unit whose goal is to prevent this [takeover] from occurring. This problem is the result of Israeli plans to ensure that there is not a unified, strong, trained command. Fatah is strong in the West Bank and is a guarantee of protection for the Palestinian Authority and will prevent any attempts of a coup d'etat.

It is incumbent upon Fatah to revive itself and to rebuild itself. It is necessary to hold the general conference and to elect new committees, including a new Central Committee and a new Revolutionary Council. It is necessary to vote for new candidates and to vote for women and youth, academics and artists – we are in need of a leadership that can command the respect of the people; a leadership with clean hands.

Q: What are your expectations of the international conference that will be hosted in November by President Bush?
A: This is not a conference but a meeting that, to date, does not have an agenda. I say, with honesty, that the Palestinian people can no longer tolerate conferences and international committees that simply make us lose hope and lose confidence in the peace process. For this reason, it is necessary for Palestinians to place as a condition on their participation the reaching of a real political solution and not just statements and speeches that just waste time.

In principle, I support participating in all conferences or meetings that will advance Palestinian interests. The success or failure of any conference, in my point of view is a question of whether it will lead to an end to the occupation. To the present day, in spite of the willingness to attend the Washington conference, all indicators are that the Israeli government is headed in the opposite direction: the Israeli forces have not withdrawn from West Bank towns and cities; they have not stopped their assassinations and imprisonments and they continue to invade Palestinian cities; they have not removed their checkpoints; the Palestinian prisoners number 11,000 and the Israeli government announces day and night their desire to help Abu Mazen and Salam Fayyad, yet on the ground they do the opposite. Instead of helping them, they hurt them.

On his political position:
Q: Are you afraid that Abu Mazen will make concessions during the Washington conference?
A: No Palestinian can cross red lines of national consensus and this is imposed also upon the Palestinian leadership. As I have heard and as I know, no one will make concessions to Palestinian positions: the key to peace is the end of the occupation and the dismantlement of settlements and the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees and the adoption of the Arab Initiative and we must move in this direction. Any agreement must be approved by the PLC and through a popular referendum.

Q. In your opinion, should there be early elections?
A: Many democracies hold early elections for one reason or another. I believe that we should hold elections before the end of 2008, but after the coup in Gaza we should hold PLC and Presidential elections at the same time in order to get out of this crisis.

Hamas Flag Goes Up in Lebanon Camps

By Anand Gopal

BADDAWI CAMP, Lebanon, Sep 5 (IPS) - There is a new look to the entrance of the Palestinian refugee camp Baddawi in northern Lebanon. Hanging above the armed man who guards the entrance are posters of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the slain spiritual leader of Hamas, and other fighters from the Palestinian guerrilla group. Nearby, a huge Hamas banner covers the side of a house, and down the road Hamas flags flutter in the wind.

Just months ago, such banners and posters would have been torn down by supporters of the rival Fatah party. But many residents here say that they have grown disillusioned with Fatah (known in Lebanon as Fatah Abu Ammar) after its defeat in Gaza in June and its handling of the crisis at the nearby refugee camp Nahr al-Bared.

When Islamic militants opened fire on Lebanese security forces in late May, the Lebanese Army entered Nahr al-Bared despite a longstanding agreement that allows Palestinian groups to police the camps. The ensuing battle between the Army and the militants completely destroyed the camp and displaced thousands of Palestinians.

Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) officials in Lebanon, led by members of the Fatah party, sided with the Army, despite what many here perceive as indiscriminate shelling of Nahr al-Bared.

On Sunday, the Lebanese Army declared victory, after more than three months of fighting, and everywhere Lebanese are waving flags and honking horns in support. But instead of rejoicing, many Palestinians here are angry with Fatah and the PLO for failing to protect civilians.

"These politicians allowed the Lebanese army to destroy the whole camp," said former Nahr al-Bared resident Abdel Salaam Khader, who lost a brother in the fighting. "We have been exposed many, many times to Israeli bombs, but even the Israelis destroyed certain places and not a whole camp."

He added, "They could have dealt with the fighters in a different way, not in a military way. The Palestinian leaders made an agreement with the government that caused us to lose our homes and possessions."

When fighting began and the first wave of displaced Palestinians arrived at the Baddawi camp, Fatah leaders promised funds for reconstruction, compensation for victims of violence, and talks with the Army to ensure that the camp would not be destroyed. But according to many of the displaced, the Palestinian leadership has not delivered on any of these promises. Locals also accuse Fatah and other PLO leaders of not preventing the Army from arbitrarily detaining and torturing Palestinians fleeing the violence.

"Fatah Abu Ammar did not protect civilians, and on the contrary they gave the Lebanese army and government all the help they needed," said a former Nahr al-Bared resident who asked not to be named. "Until now we don't have a clear timetable about the future, about the rebuilding of our camp, the date of our return, or what will happen to Nahr al-Bared. Fatah Abu Ammar didn't give us any help; they only went on TV and made grand promises. They only give money to those who belong to them. But Fatah Abu Ammar has given us nothing."

Samer Diad, another local resident, added, "While Abu Ammar (Yasser Arafat) was alive, we called them Fatah Abu Ammar. Now we call them Fatah of the Thieves."

Lebanon's Palestinian refugee camps are home to over 400,000 Palestinians and a variety of political groupings. Many of the factions are grouped under the PLO, which includes Fatah as a leading party. The leadership of Fatah and other PLO factions came to Lebanon in the early seventies. By the end of that decade, Fatah became a powerful force in Lebanese politics and in the lives of Palestinians.

Palestinian refugees looked to Fatah for social services, jobs, protection, and as the leading force in the fight against Israel. After the Israeli Army invaded Lebanon and expelled the PLO leadership in 1982, a steady decline of the PLO began, and with the onset of the first Intifadah in 1987, the frontlines of Palestinian struggle moved to the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Despite the PLO's decline, however, it always had a strong base in Lebanon. But with the ascendancy of Hamas in the Occupied Territories, Fatah's negotiations with Washington and Tel Aviv and the siege of Nahr al-Bared, many analysts contend that Fatah's support in the camps of Lebanon is at an all-time low.

Ashraf Ibrahim, analyst and community leader at the Njaz Community Centre in Baddawi, insisted that many people looked to Fatah to represent the Palestinian people in Gaza and in Nahr al-Bared, but in both cases Fatah failed.

"Fatah Abu Ammar wants to be the unique force in all of the camps," he said. "They want to crush the other groups and become the unique representation for the refugees. Therefore they have good relations with the government, but they don't talk about Palestinian rights."

The PLO recently reorganised its command structure in Lebanon. According to some local reports, the PLO is moving to strengthen its position in Lebanon in an effort to counteract the rising popularity of Hamas and other groups.

Dr. Kassim Subiyeh, a Fatah representative in Lebanon, said that "I feel that people's response to Nahr al-Bared is temporary. They expected more and did not get what they expected. Other movements and factions are using this against Fatah. But I am sure with a little time people will start using their mind and not their affections."

Leading PLO representative in Lebanon and Fatah commander Munir Maqdah told IPS that "(Nahr al-Bared) is not the fault of Fatah. People are coming to trust Fatah more and more. Fatah is a movement for all Palestinians. It comes from the womb of the Palestinian nation, so no one can remove it."

However, many Palestinians here in former Fatah strongholds are turning to Hamas. "Hamas is gaining influence here," Ashraf said, "because from the beginning they took the right position. They said we are against the military aggression of the Army. They said we will pressure the politicians to help our displaced and work until everyone is returned to their home."

Moreover, Hamas' takeover of Gaza in June and its insistence on demanding the right of return of refugees to the Occupied Territories has only increased its standing in the eyes of many in the camps. When asked about the issue of right of return, Fatah representative Subiyeh told IPS: "Leave it for hundreds of years."

For the Palestinians of Baddawi and Nahr al-Bared, many twice displaced and living eight to a room, this may be a hard pill to swallow.

Shameless

by Osamah Khalil, The Electronic Intifada

Over the past two months a coalition has formed around Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in an attempt to bolster his rule. Desperate to maintain his hold on power, Abbas has chosen to forgo national unity and rely on support from the U.S. and Israel to tighten his hold on the West Bank and target Gaza. Abbas and his benefactors have made it clear to the residents of Gaza that only by abandoning Hamas will the siege be lifted. In the interim, any deaths or starvation, while regrettable, are the requisite price to maintain Abbas' presidency and the position of his cronies. In pursuing this course, he and his appointed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have tied their fate to American and Israeli officials in the mistaken belief that they will deliver an independent Palestinian state. In doing so, Abbas and Fayyad ignore the personal, professional, and ideological relationships uniting these officials, which, contrary to their public statements, serve to undermine Palestinian aspirations. The result of this delusional strategy will be a cage disguised as a country.

Five years ago, as the second intifada spiraled out of control in the spring of 2002, President Bush asked his then National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice what was the "fundamental problem" preventing the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to the New York Times her answer was "Yasser Arafat." Rice explained, "When you think about the way people had thought about the Middle East, it was just about land." Her decision led the Bush administration's sidelining of Arafat, the emergence of Abbas, as well as their reliance on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to end the conflict through force rather than negotiations. These policies have had a devastating impact on Palestinian society, with an immeasurable cost in human life, property and infrastructure.

During the 2000 Presidential Campaign, Rice was portrayed by the Bush campaign and the mainstream American media as one of Bush's foreign policy tutors and advisers. However, she is a former Soviet specialist and by her own admission had little knowledge (or interest) in the history or politics of the Middle East. What then was the source of her keen analysis of the conflict? Rice's key adviser for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council was neo-conservative American Likudnik Elliot Abrams. An avowed opponent of the "land for peace" formula which would be at the center of any negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, Abrams is an infamous figure in Washington due to his role in the Iran-Contra affair. As Kathleen Christison recently detailed in Counterpunch, Abrams has actively worked to subvert the Palestinian national unity government and advocated a "hard coup" against Hamas. This included coordinating with like-minded allies in the State Department to pervert international law and human rights by pressuring the United Nations to impose sanctions on the occupied, not the occupier, in the wake of Hamas' election victory.

Rice's more recent confidant is Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. In a fawning New York Times Magazine cover story profile of Livni last month, Rice described her as a "friend" and a "woman of peace." A trained lawyer and former Mossad agent, Livni's meteoric rise in Israeli politics was hastened by Sharon. According to the Times, Rice and Livni share "the same intensity and work ethic, the same difficulty in thinking beyond a doctrine once it has been formed, the same disciplined intelligence that sometimes appears to lack the subtlety of wisdom and the same penchant for talking about 'values' and what is 'right'" -- and then, of course, doing the exact opposite. One example of this approach was Livni's boast that through a meeting with Rice she directly influenced Bush's 14 April 2004 statement undercutting the right of return for Palestinian refugees. She claimed "I did the right thing -- and so did Bush."

Hoping to salvage her term as Secretary of State, Rice has been publicly preparing for a renewed peace effort for some time. In March, the Washington Post reported that she finally decided to review the peace efforts of previous administrations. According to Time Magazine, this also included requesting the notes of Jordanian diplomats from the ill-fated 2000 Camp David Summit, which the Bush administration had previously disparaged. Rice's belated efforts were supposed to coincide with a resurrected Arab League peace initiative, whose proposal was based on existing UN resolutions and was again rejected by Israel for the second time in five years. Attempting to prop up Abbas, President Bush initially called for a regional summit to be held in November. To galvanize support for this initiative, Rice paid yet another high profile visit to the region accompanied by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In addition, Washington announced an increase in military aid to Israel over the next ten years. Yet, in spite of the attention and incentives, Bush's summit has since been downgraded to a "meeting," and one expects soon it will be further demoted to a "discussion." Meanwhile, as part of Rice's inane "confidence building measures," a process borrowed from the Oslo period, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas meet regularly, supposedly to finalize yet another "declaration of principles." However, adamant denials from Olmert's office inevitably follow each highly placed leak about the substance of the negotiations.

In contrast, ominous signs have appeared in the Arab and Israeli press that have not elicited denials. For several weeks the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership has claimed that early elections would be needed to break the deadlock between Fatah and Hamas, a move the latter rejected as unconstitutional. However, Fayyad recently told reporters that new elections were "not feasible" at this time. Moreover, he and other officials have suggested that Hamas will be shut out from any new elections unless they accept existing agreements. Abbas even briefly flirted with the notion of reviving the Palestinian National Council, without including Hamas of course, and sought the support of moribund leftists. Desperate for relevancy, several, like Nayef Hawatmeh of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, were eager to comply. Predictably this effort has also stalled. Meanwhile, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Abbas was requesting American weaponry, including new armored cars for "crowd dispersal," replacing those destroyed by the Israelis during the early part of the second intifada. In addition, Washington has also agreed to train Abbas' presidential guard. Concurrently, American Lt. General Keith Dayton continues training security personnel loyal to Fatah in Jericho, and a new training base may be created in Bethlehem. It would appear that Abbas and his backers are intent on a showdown with Hamas, not negotiations.

To prepare the ground for this confrontation, the PA leadership has embraced the siege of Gaza. This strategy reached a new nadir when Ambassador Riyad Mansour of the Palestinian Observer Mission to the UN recently blocked an attempt by Qatar and Indonesia to obtain a Security Council resolution expressing concern over a pending humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Mansour explained in a prepared statement that "It is unacceptable for anyone, including friends, to act on our behalf without our knowledge, without consulting us." When asked why the Palestinians did not coordinate with its "friends" to reintroduce the resolution, he answered that there was "no specific need" for one at this time, in spite of the dire warnings from multiple international aid organizations to the contrary. The diplomatic corps, which operates from the former Palestine Liberation Organization missions around the globe, purportedly represents the Palestinian people, but their recent actions and rhetoric culminating in the disgraceful charade perpetrated at the UN demonstrates where their loyalties truly lie.

Moreover, Mansour's statement of "no specific need" is as shockingly inaccurate as it is despicable. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world, with nearly 1.5 million Palestinians -- roughly 80 percent of them refugees -- crowded into a mere 360 square kilometers. With unemployment of 40 percent and underemployment far higher, the UN estimates that over 60 percent of Palestinians live below its "poverty line" of less that two dollars a day. Gaza has no functioning sea or airport facilities and all human and commercial traffic flows through Israeli-controlled (and sealed) border crossings, rendering it totally isolated. Due to the border closures, there are constant shortages of medical and food supplies, and now fuel supplies are also being used as a weapon, forcing electricity to be shut off across the strip for hours and sometimes days at a time. These actions represent a continuation of the siege and sanctions policy promoted by Abrams. As Dov Weinglass, an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explained the goal is to "put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger." By adopting this strategy as their own, Abbas and Fayyad have demonstrated they are beyond redemption.

With each passing day the depth of the PA leadership's degeneracy is revealed. Their corruption and ineptitude, so blatant and glaring over the past 13 years, has now been supplemented by a cynicism and sadism directed toward their own people with the support and encouragement of the US, Israel, the European Union, and the international community. This leadership, which once proclaimed "revolution until victory," long ago abandoned that mantra and chose to turn rebellion into money. They have shamelessly ignored the needs and will of the Palestinian people and led them to the brink of ruin. Only by abandoning this leadership can Palestinians hope to reverse this course and ensure that they determine their own future. The choice has never been starker or more certain.

Osamah Khalil is a Palestinian-American doctoral candidate in US and Middle East History at the University of California, Berkeley, focusing on US foreign policy in the Middle East. He can be reached at okhalil@berkeley.edu.