Fatah's Resistance to Israel Remains Non-Issue

"Palestinians Try to Prune Branches of Core Party"
A14, Thursday 5/21/09, Memo from Ramallah
By Ethan Bronner
****************
"Vote Fatah (or Hamas)"
A35, Thursday, 5/21/09, Op-Ed
By Khalil Shikaki
****************

In two feature pieces on the Palestinian Authority (PA), and its ruling Fatah party, the Times’ Ethan Bronner and op-ed contributor Khalil Shikaki offer a measure of critical analysis on several issues, yet overlook perhaps the most relevant: the PA’s failure to genuinely accept Israel's existence.

Bronner appropriately writes that Fatah “has the organizational transparency of a Soviet republic,” and has been painfully slow to reform. Shikaki writes more of a defense of the PA. In an incomplete, or simply dishonest, assessment, he writes that the PA has not just restored order, but defeated the terrorists. In reality, the IDF is preventing a Hamas coup in the West Bank and the PA is nowhere close to assuming total control of security.

Shikaki then laments that the PA hasn’t been “able to translate its recent accomplishments into political gains in its negotiations with Israel”. Shikaki seems unable to translate the news from just months ago, when the PA again turned down a desperate Israeli government offering statehood.

Shikaki writes that Israel’s failure to “dismantle its widespread network of checkpoints in the West Bank” is a violation of the road map, and puts the PA in a tough position with its citizens – who expect results. In Shikaki’s reality, where Israel has no role in preventing attacks and the PA has “disarmed nationalist and Islamist groups,” Israel’s checkpoints will come across to readers as simply a slap in the face of its Palestinian peace partners.

On the issue of peace with Israel, Bronner offers no penetrating analysis and fails to connect the dots from otherwise revealing quotes.

"Fatah used to be a movement focused on armed struggle,” Bronner cites a Palestinian activist. Yes, but Abbas has spoken of keeping armed struggle as an option down the road. And of course, dropping armed struggle doesn't preclude the adoption of political struggle as a way to ensure the conflict continues, a strategy that's an obvious facet of Palestinian politics. This deception must be called out, especially by such an important and reputable newspaper.

Bronner writes of Palestinians' hopes for a new leader, “Marwan Barghouti, who is in an Israeli prison,” failing to mention the dastardly crimes of which he was convicted. Bronner writes also of a future Fatah that “could also be more militant,” without exploring this problematic prospect. He then cites a PA official who says that if political discourse to pursue “national goals” (not "peace with Israel") “doesn’t work in a certain time frame we should resort to other options, including armed resistance.” There's no follow-up on this disturbing point. (emphasis mine)

Meanwhile, Shikaki openly cites some of his poll findings, such as the Palestinian public supporting armed attacks against Israeli civilians at its highest level in four years. Considering Fatah is doing an "impressive" job stopping these attacks, what better time for Israel to dismantle its provocative network of checkpoints.

"Many would argue," writes Shikaki, “a Hamas victory would derail the peace process. But to many Palestinians, this statement misses the point; if the Palestinians don’t speak with one voice, the peace process cannot go far.”

Palestinians could be missing the point. Peace with Israel doesn’t hinge only on speaking with one voice, but with one peaceful voice. Armed struggle (Hamas), indoctrination (Hamas and Fatah) and lawfare (Fatah) against Israel may be the voice unity produces, but this is not the voice of peace and moderation.

Struggle within Fatah is a theme throughout. In an “identity crisis" and deciding “what exactly it stands for,” Fatah is divided. However, the truly sad – and unreported – reality here is that unending violent or political resistance to Israel is a point on which all of Fatah can agree.