As the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East enter into their second year, how have these unprecedented events impacted Palestinian attitudes toward Israel? Will Palestinians be emboldened to mimic these revolts and collectively decide to embark on another intifada? Will they continue to pursue unilateral efforts to declare statehood in the United Nations? Or will they use a diplomatic approach and reach a negotiated settlement with Israel?
A survey of attitudes from secularists, Hamas, Fatah and the general public suggests that Palestinians will continue to embrace what they describe as "popular, nonviolent resistance" to gain concessions. These tactics include seeking unilateral recognition at the UN, staging small protests in Arab villages near the controversial security barrier, organizing demonstrations like the Global March to Jerusalem, and utilizing boycotts, sanctions and divestiture programs as well as hunger strikes by prisoners.
These actions could continue until a permanent agreement is reached with Israel. If no agreement is reached, all of these protests could trigger wide-scale uprisings, although most Palestinian leaders downplay this possibility and insist that future resistance would be peaceful and nonviolent.
Secularist Attitudes
In an interview with Al-Quds newspaper in January 2012, Munib al-Masri, an influential Palestinian billionaire who enjoys close ties with both Fatah and Hamas, asserted that ending Palestinian divisions and achieving national reconciliation remained a top priority. "The success of Palestinian unity," he said, "depends on all of us, not only on Fatah and Hamas." The next stage would be the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, which "is in the interest of Israel and the Palestinians" and a historic opportunity which should not be missed.
Al-Masri supports nonviolence but declares Palestinians have "the right to pursue any form of resistance enshrined in international law." Like other Palestinian leaders, he maintains that violence has harmed their cause and that peaceful protests, much like those in neighboring Arab countries, have the potential to generate greater international sympathy.
While al-Masri recognizes that negotiating with Israel is necessary to achieve a state, he believes Israel is unwilling to reach an agreement. To bypass this deadlock, he advocates the Arab Peace Initiative, a pan-Arab proposal proffered in 2002 and re-launched in 2007, which calls on the Arab world to end its state of war with Israel and normalize relations in exchange for a state in Gaza and the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital.
During my interview with Mohammed Dajani Daoudi, professor at al-Quds University and founder of Wasatia (moderation), an Islamist movement which seeks peaceful coexistence with Israel, he said that Arab uprisings have emboldened Islamists and that the United States has missed an opportunity to promote moderate Islamists which could undermine the spread of radicalism among Muslim youth. Moreover, Dajani notes that Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, the Gilad Shalit prisoner deal, and the rejection of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as a partner for peace has strengthened Hamas and weakened Fatah.
In spite of corruption and growing authoritarianism within both Hamas and Fatah, Dajani argues that if Palestinians decide to revolt, they would not direct their rage against their leaders but against Israel and the United States.
Hamas
The expulsion of Hamas' political base in Damascus for not publicly defending Bashar Assad's brutal crackdown has prompted the search for a new sanctuary. Relations with its erstwhile ally, Iran, have also been strained. Therefore, any possible choice for relocation -- whether in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia or Qatar -- will not provide the Islamist movement with the previous degree of funding, training, and support offered by Syria. All of these countries either enjoy diplomatic relations with Israel or low-level ties.
Hamas' awareness of its vulnerability has also been made manifest through its announcement in December 2011 that it would join the PLO. Since its inception in 1987, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have remained outside the PLO, which serves as an umbrella for Palestinian factions, and have deployed suicide bombers and rocket attacks to thwart Israel-PLO negotiations. The unprecedented decision to join the PLO would require Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce terror, and abide by previous Israel-PLO agreements.
Moreover, Hamas' defeat by Israel during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, the Palestinian public's growing frustration over the inability of Hamas-Fatah to produce a durable reconciliation, and the possibility that the Arab Spring could embolden Gazans to turn against their leaders has forced Hamas to focus more on internal affairs and less on terror attacks against Israel. According to Fathi Hammad, Hamas Interior Minister, Hamas forces during the past several months have proactively prevented rocket attacks "day and night, 24 hours, everywhere in the Strip, particularly near the borders with Israel."
However, Hamas' refusal to engage in military confrontation with Israel does not necessarily mean it is prepared to end its conflict with the Jewish state. In May 2011, Hamas Politburo leader Khaled Meshal said he could accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, while insisting that refugees could "return to Israel." Meshal did not promise to renounce violence or recognize Israel in exchange for these territorial concessions.
In April 2012, senior Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook told the American newspaper, the Forward, that Hamas would not be required to respect any agreement between Israel and the PLO and that any such settlement would be viewed as a "hudna" or truce, not permanent peace.
Fatah/PLO
After failing to reach an agreement with Israel during a series of talks in Jordan in January 2012, the Fatah-led PLO has refused to resume negotiations unless Israel halted West Bank settlements and agreed that the 1967 boundaries would constitute the framework for peace. Israel has insisted negotiations will continue only if there are no preconditions.
In April, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad boycotted a scheduled meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, which would have been their most significant meeting in two years. Nonetheless, chief negotiator Saeb Erekat took Fayyad's place and issued a vague statement that "Israel and the Palestinian Authority are committed to achieving peace."
Internal Palestinian divisions and the diplomatic deadlock have contributed to increasingly dictatorial practices by Mahmoud Abbas, who has waged a low profile war against Palestinian media critical of his rule.
In March, a Palestinian journalist and two bloggers were arrested for criticizing Abbas and for claiming corruption existed in the PLO. In an excessive case of Internet censorship in April, the Palestinian Authority restricted eight websites linked to a Fatah rival of Abbas who had criticized his policies. Abbas eventually lifted the Internet ban, but only after facing intense pressure from his constituency.
The Palestinian Street
Ibrahim Shikaki, lecturer of economics at al-Quds University, posits that it is ultimately the Palestinian masses -- and not the leadership -- who will influence policy and decide their own fate.
A joint Palestinian-Israeli poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in September 2011 found that the overwhelming majority (80 percent) of Palestinians supported unilateral efforts to obtain statehood recognition at the UN. The latest polls surveyed in March 2012 reveal a lack of confidence and pessimistic outlook toward peace with Israel. More than half of Palestinians polled (58 percent) opposed resuming negotiations with Israel unless Israel enacted a total settlement freeze in the West Bank and accepted returning to the 1967 boundaries.
Implications
These findings provide a pessimistic outlook for the future prospects of peace. While Palestinian leaders refuse to negotiate unconditionally with Israel, they may feel compelled to seek further unilateral gains. Consequently, both Hamas and Fatah remain in a position of weakness and are struggling to sustain their power. They do not appear willing to directly challenge Israel, although they may change this tactic to deflect domestic criticism.
A third intifada could have disastrous consequences for all parties involved. Yet it remains unclear if a new uprising would be directed against Palestinian leaders for failing to deliver realistic change and reform or against Israel -- or both.
On the positive side, on May 8 Netanyahu brought Kadima, the centrist opposition party, into his coalition in a national unity government. Netanyahu's government now contains the largest parliamentary majority in Israeli history, which may empower Netanyahu -- and persuade the Palestinians -- to make progress toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
This article was first published in the Foreign Policy Research Institute's Middle East Media Monitor E-Note series.
Follow Dr. Michael Sharnoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MichaelSharnoff
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mcmahon.htm
The McMahon-Hussein Agreement of October 1915
The Arabs sided with the British yet in 1916 the British signed a secret agreement with the French
Sykes–Picot Agreement
Which divided the Middle East territory formerly owned by the Ottoman Empire between England and France. The Arabs still fighting and dying along side the British were of course not informed of this arrangement between Britain and France. One year later the British announced the Balfour Declaration . Further cheating on the arrangement with the Arabs.
Looking at Palestine in particular, we come to this point, you who are reading this have to make a decision. Either you are for Democracy or you are not. Either you are for the right of self-determination or you are not.
With a population in 1917 that was over 80% Arab The future of Palestine if you believe in Democracy and the Right of Self-Determination should have been determined by the will of the majority of people living in Palestine at the time and not by the corrupt and racist British government in which the people of Palestine had no representation.
When the Palestinian people are ready to accept the continued existence of Israel there will be peace. They will get nowhere as long as they keep holding onto the dream of destroying Israel through violence, demographics, international action.
F & F.
Or to put it in even simpler terms, real peace comes when the cost has been so great for the aggressor that resorting to hostilities again for anything other than an existential threat is almost unthinkable.
Because, in the end, real peace is the fruit of decisive victory. That's a lesson of history that could stand to be revisited today.
The lesson of history is that peace happens when populations are allowed to pursue their self-interest. For example, we are at peace with Germany because we encouraged them to re-create their industrial base.
Israel is based on a failed model and is being supported only by the massive input of wealth and international control exerted by the US.
Since the Arabs have never really lost a war with Israel they are still fighting the last war and refuse to make peace except on their terms. They still want to dictate the terms of Israel's surrender. Notice how Israel has to stop building in "settlements" and has to agree to 1967 lines before the Palestinians say they will even negotiate.
Germany was defeated unconditionally. The Arabs never were.
And it is given as defense contract discounts, not as cash.
Ending that would make little difference to their economy.
Until then, they are content to render Palestinian conditions unlivable with no regret or remorse.
The Palestinian Arab leadership continues to deny the Jewish people its right of national self-determination in ANY part of its ancestral homeland, while Israel accepts the realisation of that right by "the Palestinian people" (whose claim to "nationhood" is rather dubious).
The differences between Hamas & PLO/Fateh are cosmetic & tactical, rather than substantive: Hamas refuses to make peace with Israel in any shape or form; PLO/Fateh say that they would make peace with an "Israel" that accepts... to turn itself into an Arab state.
This conflict is NOT about borders & territory. If it were, it would've been over long ago, if it had started at all (after all, territorial partitions have been proposed/implemented in 1922, 1937, 1947, 1949-1967, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2010 -- all rejected by the Arab side with no counterproposal). The Arab opposition to a Jewish state was & is predicated on religious intolerance & the assumption of Islam's supremacy. Unfortunately, as long as that continues, there are no prospects for peace. This may be a disheartening conclusion, but one shouldn't refuse to see the truth just because it's unpleasant.
There will be peace when more Palestinians than not stop embracing the lies you keep spewing, accept that the Arabs aggressed and lost, and that Israel isn't going away. At that time borders and security arrangements will become easier. Most Israelis accept an eventual Palestinian State. Obviously, that's the only State you accept as well.
Right. Sure. They're going to continue the same "popular, nonviolent resistance"
...that they showed to the Fogel and Hatuel families, and hundreds of other Israel families.
The rest of the article is a similar fairy tale.
Salam Fayyad, prime minister: "An infant, two children and their parents were the victims, and as we have always rejected violence against our people, we reject it against others and we condemn it.”
Dr. Eyad El- Sarraj, consultant to the Palestinian delegation at the Camp David 2000 Summit."The killing of children in a Jewish settlement near Nablus is a crime against all people, all humanity, against Islam and all religions, against justice and against Palestine. This horrific crime can’t be justified by any standard, cause, or excuse."
Using dead people as a political football is not pretty.
I agree. It was the only positive development in the ME predicament in the near past in addition to a seria of breakthroughs in Israeli High Tech industry and start of nationwide electric car network, thanks to Better Place.
As long as the jihad crazies continue seeking Israel's destruction, or undoing, in various ways, it won't.
The Palestinian leaders seem in no urgent rush to get anywhere or change this, so Israel will wait.
Boittom line is that the arabs dont want the jews anywhere in the middle east - unless under the yoke of islam. This has always been about religion - land is but the side show and the sooner the loons out there weeping over the "palestinians" realise that the better.