Earlier this month, a dozen Palestinian factions sent representatives to Cairo to discuss their next moves. The assembly covered the entire Palestinian political spectrum, from hardliners Hamas and Islamic Jihad, at one end, to Fateh, which forms the core of the Palestinian National Authority, at the other. Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia joined the Cairo dialogue to add his weight to the Egyptian-sponsored effort.
The Cairo meeting was only the latest instalment of an early effort which began in Gaza and ended without reaching the conclusion hoped for by many observers, including the PNA. This result would have been an agreement by all factions to declare total ban on all acts of resistance to the Israeli occupation, ending not only attacks on Israeli civilians, but even attacks on occupation forces. In short, it would have meant an unconditional and total end to the Intifada, with no guarantee of any Israeli reciprocity.
Israel, no doubt with the intention of making the assembled Palestinians' task even harder, announced in advance that it would not accept any “truce”. Rather, Israel maintained its insistence that Qureia “disarm and dismantle” all “terrorist” groups, rather than negotiate with them, and promised to continue its assassinations and attacks as long as the PNA failed to do that.
No meaningful effort was made by any of the erstwhile supporters of the truce, inside or outside the region, to pressure Israel into abstaining from such destructive and preemptive pronouncements and actions. Nor was there much emphasis on the obvious point that no truce could work unless it is respected by both sides.
But this time, this was not due to the usual diplomatic reluctance to say anything that might annoy Israel. Rather, it is due to the total acceptance of the concept that what blocks the path to peace is nothing but Palestinian “terror”, and not Israeli occupation, colonisation and the massive violence used to carry them out. While this logic has, of course, been accepted by the Israelis, Americans, the Europeans, the UN and other actors in the region, what is most alarming is that the PNA itself has now internalised this wrong view.
When the Cairo talks ended without agreement on a much anticipated truce, many who had taken the outcome for granted were shocked by the “failure” of the talks. But perhaps the outcome was actually a success.
Qureia insisted that the talks had not failed, but this was just face saving, since he stood to benefit most, politically, from waving a truce in the face of the Americans and the Israeli occupiers. The previous truce, which virtually eliminated violence against Israelis for 51 days, was systematically destroyed by Israeli assassinations and attacks. This debacle led to the fall of Qureia's predecessor, Mahmoud Abbas. Rather than winning any credit for the truce, Abbas was routinely blamed for presenting the truce as an alternative to fulfilling his supposed commitment to end the very existence of Palestinian resistance groups by launching a Palestinian civil war. Abbas' inability to fulfil the escalating demands of the Israelis and Americans, while at the same time having absolutely nothing of substance to present to his own people, led to his downfall. The same fate is likely to await Qureia's government.
The point that went mostly unnoticed in Cairo, while attention was focused on the elusive truce, was of much bigger significance and probably one of the hidden causes of disagreement: it is basically ridiculous to demand of the victim of occupation, who is constantly under attack, to declare a truce. It is the aggressor, the attacker, the occupier, the land confiscator, the coloniser, the assassin, the house destroyer, the possessor of the most lethal war machine, and the law violator, who should be required to disarm, stop his attacks and declare a truce. His victim has no power to do that on his behalf.
But on the basis of the absurd prevailing logic, a Palestinian truce would really mean total surrender to the occupation. The Palestinians would simply be putting their hands up while Israel's plans to complete the colonisation of all Palestine are completed, while the Palestinians sit by, vainly awaiting the mirage of salvation from a hypocritical world, an incapacitated UN system and a United States that always sides with Israel and writes the cheques that directly fund the occupation and the settlements.
The reality is that it is the Palestinians who need the truce most, particularly Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders who are being targeted by Israel's death squads. From their perspective, a reciprocal truce would make a lot of sense. But a commitment not to respond to Israel's ongoing aggression in any way would simply have been foolish, especially given the Israeli promise to continue assassinations no matter what, as during the first truce. By rejecting a one-sided truce, the Palestinian factions learned from the earlier experience and decided against signing their own execution warrants.
In the West, there exists the perception that what was at stake in Cairo was whether or not Palestinians would continue attacks on Israeli civilians. In reality, there is little controversy about this, and the parties in Cairo were close to agreement on sparing Israeli civilians from the bloody conflict. In fact, since the Haifa bombing which killed 21 Israelis in early October, there has been a de facto suspension of Palestinian attacks on civilians in Israel. The international media have dubbed the period since then one of “relative calm”, because few Israelis have been victimised. Yet, from early October until late December, more than 100 Palestinians, the vast majority civilians, were killed by Israel, despite the absence of attacks on Israelis, according to a report from The Electronic Intifada. Because the victims of violence are principally Palestinians, they are unnoticed, as if their lives had no value.
What the opposition factions wanted to discuss was announcing an end to violence, not as a unilateral step under Israeli and American pressure, but as part of a broader Palestinian strategy. In particular, they wanted to put an end to the political chaos in which PNA ineptitude and lack of strategy has plunged the Palestinians. Most of the disagreement was because the opposition wants to end the PNA's and Fateh's monopoly on power. While being willing to give up nothing, the PNA demanded that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all other factions grant them full political authority to deal with all issues related to peace and negotiations. Given the PNA's unbroken record of resolving any deadlock with Israel by conceding more Palestinian rights, and the fact that dubious plans such as the “Geneva Initiative” and the Nusseibeh-Ayalon agreement regularly emerge from the top PNA ranks, no one was likely to buy this.
The Cairo “failure” simply demonstrates, once again, that recycling the failed experiments and formulas of the past cannot end the violence, let along lead to peace. Unless the entire approach of those who have the power to influence Israel changes, namely the US, Europe and the UN, the conflict will grind on. Issuing statements demanding that the Palestinians “do more” in a situation where they hold almost none of the cards is politically expedient, but useless.
In the absence of serious international efforts, all that is left is to continue counting the dead on both sides, while the names change in the office of the Palestinian prime minister and the so-called “peace plans” that have been circulating, unimplemented, for decades.
The writer is former ambassador and permanent representative of Jordan at the UN. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.
