The objective of the Annapolis peace process was to establish peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state -- an aim the stateless Palestinians have been struggling to achieve for decades. With the success of the Annapolis process, their long-sought dream may come to fruition. The Palestinians may be happier with the outcome because they will end up having two states instead of just one, a result beyond even their dreams.
Imagine a peace conference on the Palestinian question to which the representatives of nearly 50 countries were invited, but not the representatives of the Palestinian people.
With whom can peace be established, with a handful of powerful warlords? Maybe in some crisis-driven areas of the world, but not in the Palestinian case. Without including the Palestinian people, peace will never be arrived at. It has been the struggle of the people in the streets of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to end the occupation and build an independent state. What brought the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) into the occupied territories was the resistance of the Palestinian people in the streets, the Intifada. Peace without people is wishful thinking.
Then the question arises, who is entitled to represent the Palestinian people in a peace negotiation?
Obviously, Mahmoud Abbas as the elected president of the Palestinian Authority has his people's endorsement. But not only him -- the January 2006 elections were overwhelmingly won by Hamas, capturing 76 seats of the Palestinian parliament while its rival Fatah took 43 seats, a comfortable majority to form a Hamas government. But Hamas' electoral success and popular legitimacy were not recognized. There were some points for those who boycotted the Hamas government to take hold of -- Hamas did not denounce violence as a tool for political objectives and did not accept the agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. These were serious problems, but to overcome them required engagement with Hamas. The invitation extended to Khalid Meshaal to visit Turkey for a private meeting in the spring of 2006 was just such an act of engagement, meant to persuade the Hamas leaders to take some positive steps in line with the expectations of the international community. Yet it was totally misunderstood by the US and deliberately attacked by opponents of the government at home.
Western governments, including the European Union, imposed sanctions on Hamas. Encouraged by the attitude of the Western governments, the presence of Hamas even within the unity government was not tolerated. Fights between Hamas and Fatah erupted throughout Palestinian territory, resulting not only in the deaths of over 500 people but also the de facto partition of the Palestinian Authority between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Moreover, democratic experimentation has come to an end in Palestine, the place closest to democratic governance in the Arab world, given its strong political conscience developed out of its struggle to end the occupation. Palestinians have lost their belief in democratic elections and the possibility of change through the ballot box. Because of this, instead of seeking democratic legitimacy the competing parties in Palestine try to establish their power through the barrel of a gun -- a loss not only for Palestine but for the entire region of those who believe in the possibility of change through democratic means.
When it comes to building peace in the Middle East, exclusion again does not work and has never worked. We should keep in mind that a peace process without Hamas is destined to disintegrate. It is a movement with a significant degree of popular support. If there is to be peace in Palestine it cannot be without people's consent, which requires the representation of all sides, including Hamas, in the peace process. Otherwise, the best outcome we can hope for is the establishment of two Palestinian states, which will be a source of many other problems in the region.
Notwithstanding the potential problems, the main actors who were present in Annapolis, namely the US, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority, may have already agreed upon a two-state solution in Palestine.
03.12.2007
Imagine a peace conference on the Palestinian question to which the representatives of nearly 50 countries were invited, but not the representatives of the Palestinian people.
With whom can peace be established, with a handful of powerful warlords? Maybe in some crisis-driven areas of the world, but not in the Palestinian case. Without including the Palestinian people, peace will never be arrived at. It has been the struggle of the people in the streets of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to end the occupation and build an independent state. What brought the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) into the occupied territories was the resistance of the Palestinian people in the streets, the Intifada. Peace without people is wishful thinking.
Then the question arises, who is entitled to represent the Palestinian people in a peace negotiation?
Obviously, Mahmoud Abbas as the elected president of the Palestinian Authority has his people's endorsement. But not only him -- the January 2006 elections were overwhelmingly won by Hamas, capturing 76 seats of the Palestinian parliament while its rival Fatah took 43 seats, a comfortable majority to form a Hamas government. But Hamas' electoral success and popular legitimacy were not recognized. There were some points for those who boycotted the Hamas government to take hold of -- Hamas did not denounce violence as a tool for political objectives and did not accept the agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. These were serious problems, but to overcome them required engagement with Hamas. The invitation extended to Khalid Meshaal to visit Turkey for a private meeting in the spring of 2006 was just such an act of engagement, meant to persuade the Hamas leaders to take some positive steps in line with the expectations of the international community. Yet it was totally misunderstood by the US and deliberately attacked by opponents of the government at home.
Western governments, including the European Union, imposed sanctions on Hamas. Encouraged by the attitude of the Western governments, the presence of Hamas even within the unity government was not tolerated. Fights between Hamas and Fatah erupted throughout Palestinian territory, resulting not only in the deaths of over 500 people but also the de facto partition of the Palestinian Authority between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Moreover, democratic experimentation has come to an end in Palestine, the place closest to democratic governance in the Arab world, given its strong political conscience developed out of its struggle to end the occupation. Palestinians have lost their belief in democratic elections and the possibility of change through the ballot box. Because of this, instead of seeking democratic legitimacy the competing parties in Palestine try to establish their power through the barrel of a gun -- a loss not only for Palestine but for the entire region of those who believe in the possibility of change through democratic means.
When it comes to building peace in the Middle East, exclusion again does not work and has never worked. We should keep in mind that a peace process without Hamas is destined to disintegrate. It is a movement with a significant degree of popular support. If there is to be peace in Palestine it cannot be without people's consent, which requires the representation of all sides, including Hamas, in the peace process. Otherwise, the best outcome we can hope for is the establishment of two Palestinian states, which will be a source of many other problems in the region.
Notwithstanding the potential problems, the main actors who were present in Annapolis, namely the US, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority, may have already agreed upon a two-state solution in Palestine.
03.12.2007
No comments:
Post a Comment