OPINIONS

Thu 25 Jan 2024 5:06 pm - Jerusalem Time

There is no political measure without separating the PLO from Hamas.

Zvi Barel

Joseph Borrell, the European Union's foreign relations chief, had an important takeaway when he said how the war should be ended and the conflict resolved. He said during a speech last Friday at the University of Valladolid (University of Valladolid) in Spain, where he received an honorary doctorate, “We believe that the two-state solution must be imposed from the outside, in order to reach peace. This is despite the fact that Israel repeatedly confirms its opposition to this solution.” In order to prevent it, they went so far as to even establish Hamas. The government of Israel funded Hamas to weaken the Fatah-affiliated Palestinian Authority.

Israel was not the one that established Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority is not Fatah, but Borrell does not need to go into marginal details. Borrell has an organized plan focused on preparing the way for an international conference to examine the appropriate methods and tools required to reach a two-state solution. It was presented during the European Union foreign ministers' meeting held last Monday in Brussels, in which the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan participated, as well as the representative of the Arab League and Foreign Minister Israel Katz. Borrell has issued harsh statements against Israel. He said, "The other solutions they [meaning the Israelis] have are to make all the Palestinians leave the country? To kill them all? The way they are destroying Hamas is not the appropriate way. They are sowing hatred for generations to come." These sharp statements come from a foreign minister who has not recorded any notable achievements in the field of the European Union's external relations.

The idea of holding an international conference to discuss a solution to the conflict was not invented by Borrell. It was raised by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas more than two months ago during his meeting with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. This conference, under international sponsorship, and American in particular, could be evidence that the American administration actually intends to advance the two-state solution, and thus achieve the basic condition set by the Palestinian Authority in order for it to be prepared to bear responsibility for the Gaza Strip after the war.

The United States has not yet expressed its willingness to hold such an international conference. Simply holding it could put it on a collision course with Israel. Washington, which coined the term “renewed Palestinian Authority,” has not yet presented the list required for this renewal - the things that Abbas must do to obtain a certificate from the White House, and most importantly, whether the authority will actually be “renewed,” and whether the United States is able to force Israel to grant The Palestinian Authority has the powers to administer Gaza, and under what conditions?

According to sources in the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian journalists, the American envoys who met with Abbas spoke to him about the need to appoint a deputy with powers, in addition to purging the authority of corruption, and including young groups in the leadership of the PLO. They stressed that in any composition or structure of power, Hamas cannot be a partner.

Hamas leaders conducted irregular dialogues on this issue with PLO officials, with the aim of reaching understandings regarding the framework within which Hamas could join the organization. However, the Hamas leadership still rejects the two basic conditions put forward by Abbas for Hamas to join: pursuing peaceful resistance against the occupation, instead of armed struggle, and recognition of international resolutions, including the Oslo Accords, which includes recognition of Israel. These conditions were rejected last July, when the Palestinian factions met in Egypt with the aim of advancing reconciliation, and there are no indications of any changes in the movement’s position. Despite this, the official Palestinian position was and still is that Hamas, during and after the war, is an integral part of the Palestinian people, and must be represented in the PLO as a movement.

This position contains fundamental contradictions, as the leadership of the PLO does not currently have any response to the intellectual differences regarding the issue of the final solution. While the organization recognizes Israel and aspires to a two-state solution, Hamas is in a completely different position. More than 3 months after the war, Hamas published an 18-page document, entitled “This is our story - why the Al-Aqsa flood?” In it, she explains the reasons that prompted her to plan and initiate the attack on Israel. This document is political, and is not directed to the Palestinian public, but rather to Arab and international public opinion. There is no need to address the flawed details and facts it contained, or the efforts made to describe the “horrific crimes” as mistakes, or even a failure to control the forces. In addition, it could have been expected that the document would include any direction regarding the future role that Hamas wants to play in the future, or at least the political vision.

In the final part of the document, Hamas presents eight demands. They all address the continuation of the armed struggle, calling on the international community and the Arab countries to boycott and punish Israel, pushing for a ceasefire, and in particular curbing all plans that aspire to shape the future of Gaza, according to the ambitions of the Zionist occupier, and “no one has the authority to impose His care lies with the Palestinian people, with the exception of the Palestinian people themselves.”

There is no mention in the document of participation in the PLO, the required political solution, or willingness to discuss the two-state solution equation. As Palestinian journalist and researcher Hisham Dibsi asked in an article published on the Lebanese website “Janoubia”: “Is Hamas even capable of reaching any solution outside the framework of Palestinian legitimacy, or will it continue to conduct separate negotiations with Israel and the United States, under Qatari sponsorship?” Dibsi, who strongly criticizes The “Hamas” document presents the position of “Hamas” as one that prefers the “historical right” to the “political right.” This is an important distinction that clearly illustrates the gap between the position of the PLO, which is ready to adopt political solutions that require giving up “historical rights” to control all of Palestine, This includes the right of return for refugees, and the position of Hamas, which sees preferring the right to a Palestinian state as a concession to historical rights.

Language is unable, no matter how eloquent, to bridge these ideological positions that prevent both Hamas and the PLO from building a practical and applicable common denominator that could push towards joint administration of the promised State of Palestine. At the same time, as long as the organization and its leaders, including the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, remain committed to the political and institutional partnership with Hamas, calls for a two-state solution will remain empty. Therefore, the American demand for the Authority to carry out administrative reforms that enable it to be a partner in the management of Gaza, is heading towards the comfortable tactical path, but it ignores the intellectual and ideological separation between the PLO, especially Fatah, and Hamas, which makes the chances of its success slim. This is at a time when Israel, the United States, and the international community in general still embrace the principle that there is no place for Hamas as a partner in the administration of the Palestinian state, especially the administration of Gaza. It must be remembered that all countries that now oppose Hamas, as a component of any future Palestinian administration, maintain political and economic relations with governments in Iraq, and also in Lebanon, where “terrorist” organizations are an integral part of its legitimate political system.

Tags

Share your opinion

There is no political measure without separating the PLO from Hamas.

MORE FROM OPINIONS

Brief Talk

Ibrahim Melhem

US focused on hunting down Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar, in bid to end Gaza war

Middle East Eye

Video: Why Israel Is in Deep Trouble

JOHN J. MEARSHEIMERMAY

Palestine and Israel... from the Jewish Holocaust to the Palestinian Holocaust

Ibrahim Abrash

The least that can be said

Ibrahim Melhem

The Limits of Moralism in Israel and Gaza

Ross Douthat

The Limits of the Biden-Netanyahu ‘Dispute’... Above the Rubble of Rafah

Eyad Abu Shakra

French academic: Biden has declared himself a Zionist since 1973

Translation for "Al-Quds" dot com

Under the Pretext of “Antisemitism”, the Suppression of the Palestinian People is Accompanied by an Attempt to Suppress the Defense of their Cause

YAANI.fr

Podcast: 7 Months on, How Would a Breakthrough look? Ehud Olmert, Dr Nasser Alkidwa & Thomas Friedman

Ramallah - "Al-Quds" dot com

What Hamas Wants in Postwar Gaza

Foreign Affairs

Hebrew Media: What is behind Biden's threat to stop supplying weapons to Israel?

Institute for National Security Studies

Biden’s war on Gaza is now a war on truth and the right to protest

Jonathan Cook

Gaza is the greatest test liberalism has faced since 1945. And it is failing

Middle East Eye

Student protests upend hegemony on Israel and Palestine forever

Middle East Eye

What will follow from the start of the attack on Rafah, and where is the movement heading in the Middle East?

Translation for "Al-Quds" dot com

They Used to Say Arabs Can’t Have Democracy Because It’d Be Bad for Israel. Now the U.S. Can’t Have It Either.

The Intercept

Netanyahu and Hamas are playing politics over a Gaza truce

Prospects

Rafah invasion: With defeat in sight, how can Netanyahu declare victory?

Middle East Eye

War on Gaza: Western powers never believed in a rules-based order

Middle East Eye