×
’Dogs dinner’ after the Gaza offensive
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
Sannin stands still not only as a snow-covered mountain in the northeast of the Lebanese capital Beirut but also a mountain gazing over the Mediterranean behind the Mount Lebanon. About 3,000 meter high Mount Sannin is the second highest point in Lebanon. The great British travel writer Colin Thubron once wrote, "It ascends with a massive assuredness on the shoulders of the peaks around it, a first among equals."
Every time I see Sannin, I remember my al Fatah member friends who died while trying to take over Mount Sannin during the Civil War in 1976. "Saraya Tullabiyya" (Student Brigades), had the most intellectual members of the Fatah; or in other words, of the Palestinian world, who died in Sannin.
After the latest developments in Gaza, we got together with old friends and talked about a common friend, Abu Khalid Corc. Born in Bir Zeit, next to Ramallah, Corc died in Sannin when he was 30. Did all die for nothing? Will the "cause" which tens (thousands) died for be taken over by Hamas that hasn’t paid a high price compared to what al Fatah had gone through?
The Fatah-Hamas split among Palestinians is being projected as separation of "Fathavi and Hamasi," pro-Fatah and pro-Hamas, everywhere in Lebanon, especially at the capital Beirut where al Fatah is headquartered for a long time. Interestingly enough, Lebanese Sunni sympathize with al Fatah as Lebanese pro-Hezbollah Shiite are the supporters of Sunni Hamas. Majority of Palestinians are Fatah supporters though.
That is the problem. "Pro-Fatah" are awfully demoralized. Israel’s Gaza offensive that started on Dec. 27, 2008 caused for Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Mazen, loss of credibility in a period where the support for Fatah was higher than that of Hamas among Palestinians and the attack became a kiss of life for Hamas. Abbas is being pushed aside now. General opinion is that if Hamas isn’t involved in peace talks, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will never be resolved.
New President of the United States Barack Obama follows a different approach in the Middle East issue than his predecessor George W. Bush. Obama rejuvenates the principle of "two state;" i.e. formation of an independent Palestinian state. The new U.S. president appointed half-Lebanese George Mitchell as his special envoy to the Middle East, in replacement of a Jewish decent Dennis Ross. Radical Israelis are disturbed by this appointment. However, Obama asked Hamas to stop rocket attacks against Israeli settlements in the south and to accept previous agreements made between the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO, and Israel, in order to have "legitimacy". The new U.S. administration doesn’t recognize Hamas as the "representative of Palestinians" but it doesn’t either say that no talks will be held with Hamas. That is to say if Hamas meets the aforementioned pre-requisites, the U.S. administration may not reject inclusion of Hamas in the negotiation process.
Americans, by the way, see Abbas as the leader of Palestinians and Selim Fayyat as the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, the "legitimate authority" and "representative of Palestinians."
From now on, I mean in the aftermath of the Gaza cease-fire, the course of the process is yet a dogs dinner. Discussions and assessments are made about Hamas but the organization has no particular desire to be involved in talks. Their prime goal is to exploit the current situation al Fatah is in and become the "only representative of the Palestinian people" just like the Fatah-controlled PLO once was. On account of the Gaza offensive, Hamas has reached a point where without Hamas neither the negotiation process in Palestine nor solution to the conflict is realistic. Therefore the real problem now is to re-establish national unity among Palestinians, to have truce between Hamas and al Fatah, to set up necessary mechanism, and to make the Israeli clich "We are ready but have no addressee in the Palestinian side" null and void.
Israelis first held the late Palestinian Authority Leader and the "national icon" Yasser Arafat in his compound in Ramallah under siege for years. For the former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Arafat couldn’t be his "Palestinian partner" because Arafat was introduced as "irrelevant." After Arafat died Israelis did nothing to strengthen new Palestinian leader Abbas’ hand and his legitimacy. And now they see Abbas as their addressee and refuse Hamas. So Israelis is reducing the affect of Abbas to zero by doing so. Israelis will not sit with Hamas, but with whom they will try to negotiate?
Does Israel really want a peaceful solution based on "land concession" or do they really want a "two state" solution in the areas stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River? I doubt it. Still, things are so fragile and ready to burst in the Middle East, especially in Gaza that they cannot be left alone. So the U.S. diplomacy will take the stage. The U.S. administration will wait for the Israeli elections to be held on Feb. 10 and will see who the Israeli addressee is. Until then the Palestinian addressee will be determined. We are approaching a period that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan may be involved in the issue although seems he burned the bridge with Israel.
The Middle East is going through the most dramatic scenes of its near past. The deep split among Palestinians, serious polarization in the Arab World and the gap getting deeper between the Arab regimes and the Arabs in street. Israel took advantage of this exact picture and held the Gaza offensive. The Gaza attack proves the recklessness of the Zionist state as much as it shows the incredible weakness of the Arab World.
The offensive shed a light on such weakness and has deepened it. One of my Lebanese friends couldn’t help himself to say "Just like in 1948 and in 1967. Why don’t we say we have failed a big time?" This is the situation. The next step is to determine how the "national unity" will be achieved again, how the representation issue is to be resolved.
"Unless the polarization among Arabs in the region transforms into a regional consensus, there is nothing to do," says another friend. I dive in at this point, "For this reason, it is meaningless to say Abu Mazen is not representing Palestinians because he is a Palestinian preferred by Sunni Arab regimes in the region. I mean by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Just like Hamas is being preferred by Syria and Iran."
My remarks receive general approval.
That, for this reason again Erdoğan’s pro-Hamas appearance may be functional. Turkey is not an Arab country and it is not either a regional country taking a side in the issue as Iran does. To the more, Turkey is the only country regarded by Sunni Arab actors in the region as a "member of the family" yet looking after Hamas to the contrary. It seems that Turkey barely has a chance to play broker between Israel and Syria. But it will stand a chance to take place as a prestigious player and an "activist" in the Middle East process, in efforts by the Egypt-Saudi Arabia duo and in American initiatives, owing this to "Hamas’ condition" or its relations with Hamas in this period.
After the latest developments in Gaza, we got together with old friends and talked about a common friend, Abu Khalid Corc. Born in Bir Zeit, next to Ramallah, Corc died in Sannin when he was 30. Did all die for nothing? Will the "cause" which tens (thousands) died for be taken over by Hamas that hasn’t paid a high price compared to what al Fatah had gone through?
The Fatah-Hamas split among Palestinians is being projected as separation of "Fathavi and Hamasi," pro-Fatah and pro-Hamas, everywhere in Lebanon, especially at the capital Beirut where al Fatah is headquartered for a long time. Interestingly enough, Lebanese Sunni sympathize with al Fatah as Lebanese pro-Hezbollah Shiite are the supporters of Sunni Hamas. Majority of Palestinians are Fatah supporters though.
That is the problem. "Pro-Fatah" are awfully demoralized. Israel’s Gaza offensive that started on Dec. 27, 2008 caused for Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Mazen, loss of credibility in a period where the support for Fatah was higher than that of Hamas among Palestinians and the attack became a kiss of life for Hamas. Abbas is being pushed aside now. General opinion is that if Hamas isn’t involved in peace talks, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will never be resolved.
New President of the United States Barack Obama follows a different approach in the Middle East issue than his predecessor George W. Bush. Obama rejuvenates the principle of "two state;" i.e. formation of an independent Palestinian state. The new U.S. president appointed half-Lebanese George Mitchell as his special envoy to the Middle East, in replacement of a Jewish decent Dennis Ross. Radical Israelis are disturbed by this appointment. However, Obama asked Hamas to stop rocket attacks against Israeli settlements in the south and to accept previous agreements made between the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO, and Israel, in order to have "legitimacy". The new U.S. administration doesn’t recognize Hamas as the "representative of Palestinians" but it doesn’t either say that no talks will be held with Hamas. That is to say if Hamas meets the aforementioned pre-requisites, the U.S. administration may not reject inclusion of Hamas in the negotiation process.
Americans, by the way, see Abbas as the leader of Palestinians and Selim Fayyat as the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, the "legitimate authority" and "representative of Palestinians."
From now on, I mean in the aftermath of the Gaza cease-fire, the course of the process is yet a dogs dinner. Discussions and assessments are made about Hamas but the organization has no particular desire to be involved in talks. Their prime goal is to exploit the current situation al Fatah is in and become the "only representative of the Palestinian people" just like the Fatah-controlled PLO once was. On account of the Gaza offensive, Hamas has reached a point where without Hamas neither the negotiation process in Palestine nor solution to the conflict is realistic. Therefore the real problem now is to re-establish national unity among Palestinians, to have truce between Hamas and al Fatah, to set up necessary mechanism, and to make the Israeli clich "We are ready but have no addressee in the Palestinian side" null and void.
Israelis first held the late Palestinian Authority Leader and the "national icon" Yasser Arafat in his compound in Ramallah under siege for years. For the former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Arafat couldn’t be his "Palestinian partner" because Arafat was introduced as "irrelevant." After Arafat died Israelis did nothing to strengthen new Palestinian leader Abbas’ hand and his legitimacy. And now they see Abbas as their addressee and refuse Hamas. So Israelis is reducing the affect of Abbas to zero by doing so. Israelis will not sit with Hamas, but with whom they will try to negotiate?
Does Israel really want a peaceful solution based on "land concession" or do they really want a "two state" solution in the areas stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River? I doubt it. Still, things are so fragile and ready to burst in the Middle East, especially in Gaza that they cannot be left alone. So the U.S. diplomacy will take the stage. The U.S. administration will wait for the Israeli elections to be held on Feb. 10 and will see who the Israeli addressee is. Until then the Palestinian addressee will be determined. We are approaching a period that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan may be involved in the issue although seems he burned the bridge with Israel.
The Middle East is going through the most dramatic scenes of its near past. The deep split among Palestinians, serious polarization in the Arab World and the gap getting deeper between the Arab regimes and the Arabs in street. Israel took advantage of this exact picture and held the Gaza offensive. The Gaza attack proves the recklessness of the Zionist state as much as it shows the incredible weakness of the Arab World.
The offensive shed a light on such weakness and has deepened it. One of my Lebanese friends couldn’t help himself to say "Just like in 1948 and in 1967. Why don’t we say we have failed a big time?" This is the situation. The next step is to determine how the "national unity" will be achieved again, how the representation issue is to be resolved.
"Unless the polarization among Arabs in the region transforms into a regional consensus, there is nothing to do," says another friend. I dive in at this point, "For this reason, it is meaningless to say Abu Mazen is not representing Palestinians because he is a Palestinian preferred by Sunni Arab regimes in the region. I mean by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Just like Hamas is being preferred by Syria and Iran."
My remarks receive general approval.
That, for this reason again Erdoğan’s pro-Hamas appearance may be functional. Turkey is not an Arab country and it is not either a regional country taking a side in the issue as Iran does. To the more, Turkey is the only country regarded by Sunni Arab actors in the region as a "member of the family" yet looking after Hamas to the contrary. It seems that Turkey barely has a chance to play broker between Israel and Syria. But it will stand a chance to take place as a prestigious player and an "activist" in the Middle East process, in efforts by the Egypt-Saudi Arabia duo and in American initiatives, owing this to "Hamas’ condition" or its relations with Hamas in this period.
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
