Palestinian Deal a Very Vague Hint of Progress
Frida Ghitis | Bio | 13 Sep 2006
World Politics Watch Exclusive

JERUSALEM -- Pedestrians jam this city's lively Ben Yehuda Street during the blindingly bright daylight hours and late into the Middle Eastern night. From the local newsstands, the papers announce an agreement between the Palestinian sides, Hamas and Fatah, to form a unity government, holding out the tantalizing prospect of progress in the quest for peace. The news sifts into conversations along this white stone road, where shops and restaurants buzz with activity and street musicians entertain the crowds even as armed guards posted at every door check restaurant and cafe patrons to keep suicide bombers from striking this, one of their favorite Jerusalem targets. This is what passes for normal in Israel: a full, complicated life, with the constantly loo[ming threat of tragedy, and a perennial hope for peace.

The question this day is whether the just-announced agreement between Hamas, the radical Islamic party that controls the Palestinian government, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of the rival Fatah party, will bring this land any closer to peace.

The reason Hamas and Fatah have decided to work together, stated simply, is money. Since Hamas took power, international donors and Israel have cut off the flow of funds to the Palestinian Authority, creating a desperate financial crisis. The crisis has spawned protests within the Palestinian territories against Hamas, along with a sharp drop in popular support for the party that swept to power earlier this year. A recent poll by the Palestinian an-Najah National University in Nablus shows that if elections were held today, Hamas would receive only 20 percent of the vote, a stunning reversal in its standing. The situation has grown dire enough that the group's leaders in Gaza (in contrast with their rival power center exiled in Damascus) know they urgently need to take action.

Hamas knows exactly what it would take to reopen the donors' tap so it can begin paying salaries and providing services among its constituents. The United States, the European Union and Israel, all of which have long classified Hamas as a terrorist organization after the group carried out hundreds of attacks, say money will flow again when Hamas fulfills three preconditions: recognize Israel's right to exist, agree to respect previously signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, and renounce violence. Without that, they have vowed, aid will not return. And yet, that solid U.S.-EU-Israel front could easily crack.

Israel, not surprisingly, will refuse to transfer funds to an entity responsible for suicide bombings and rocket launches against civilians, especially as long as that organization remains committed to Israel's destruction. The United States is likely to support this position and continue to insist, at the very least, on recognition of Israel. As for the EU, its stance on the issue could prove less than unshakeable. Palestinians know the right wording on their agreement could give Europeans, many of whom are, shall we say, less than passionate about their support for Israel, the political cover they need to again become the principal financial lifeline for the Palestinian Authority.

To this effect, when Hamas explains the latest agreement for a joint Fatah-Hamas government, the details can sound different depending on the audience. Has Hamas now agreed to recognize Israel? Hamas sources tell journalists that the party has approved "indirect recognition." But when Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said "We will never recognize the legitimacy of the occupation," the message to Arab audiences is crystal clear: Hamas considers all of Israel "occupied" territory. That means that Hamas is restating its vow never to recognize Israel, regardless of its borders.

Still, by wording its rejection in terms that are subject to misinterpretation, Hamas is hoping to pry open European wallets. The use of vague and misleading language is a fine art in the Middle East. This can make Europeans and Americans, inexperienced in deciphering Levantine double-speak, the victims of cunning manipulation.

Negotiations between Hamas and Fatah are not over, and the deal could still unravel. Assuming the agreement goes through, the publicity and fund-raising campaigns that will undoubtedly follow its implementation will show this deal is specifically designed to bring cash back to the Palestinian Authority. So far, there is little sign that it represents a genuine shift in strategy or ideology by Hamas.

Evidence of Hamas' purported recognition of Israel, according to early drafts of the unity plan, is found in a portion of the text that acknowledges "the existing political reality." That, of course, is what many in the territories have said for a long time: Israel exists, anyone can recognize that. But that type of recognition is nowhere near the international requirement that Hamas recognize Israel by accepting its right to exist.

On the requirement that the group abide by previously signed agreements, that too is addressed in the most ambiguous of terms, with the early draft saying those agreements will be accepted, "as long as they are in the interest of the Palestinian people," which leaves room for picking bits from the carcass of old diplomacy, while still leaving painstakingly reached diplomatic achievements essentially dead.

On violence, Hamas does apparently agree to stop launching its Qassam rockets across the border of Gaza into Israeli towns. However, there is no commitment to stopping other violence. In fact, the legitimacy of other attacks against Israelis is restated in that draft.

It is unclear whether the agreement between Hamas and Fatah means Hamas is moving closer to the less extreme position of Fatah, or Fatah is moving closer to Hamas.

What is clear is that both parties are feeling the pressure. Fatah's Abu Mazen has looked so powerless that he risks becoming terminally irrelevant. This deal gives him a new chance at possible relevance. Hamas, for its part, has discovered that the people are not willing to live on "salt and olives," as its leaders once claimed, defiantly dismissing the cut-off in aid. The agreement offers the possibility of becoming responsive to the demands of the people, and it shows those demands can make a difference.

That is a small sign of progress. It's enough to make a splash on the headlines, but nowhere near enough to produce much optimism among the visitors to Jerusalem's Ben Yehuda Street. The agreement does not satisfy the international conditions for resuming aid. And, sadly, it does not lay a true foundation for Israelis and Palestinians to resolve their differences, simply because it frames those differences as utterly irreconcilable. It does, however, show that Palestinians are losing patience with Hamas and that Hamas senses the danger. That is the best indication that real change could be on the way.

Frida Ghitis, who writes about world affairs, is the author of "The End of Revolution: a Changing World in the Age of Live Television." She is a former CNN correspondent and producer and has worked in more than 50 countries.

http://www.worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=174
Deceit is endorsed in Islam. It is called Religious Deceit or Takiya the essenece of which is to make the enemy of Islam drop its guard.

Only fools will believe a word of what the Hamas or the Fatah have to say. If indeed they are serious, then the agreement should be in unambiguous terms. No flimflam should be tolerated or accepted.

While one could debate the Palestinian issue till the cows come home, the reality is that Israel exists and violence in the Middle East exists which is doing none any good and instead is bring misery to all - not only the Middle East, but to the world.

Peace has to come.

But not at the cost of blackmail or deceit!