BY AHMAD NIMER
RAMALLAH Following the conclusion of the three-way summit between the US, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Aqaba on June 4, Palestinian activists and political factions have reacted with a mixture of anger and stunned disbelief.
Leaders from all Palestinian factions were quick to condemn the speech of Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen, which was widely seen as violating the basic principles of the Palestinian liberation movement.
The right of return for Palestinian refugees was singled out as a critical omission in Mazen's speech, as was the issue of the 5000 Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli jails. Most importantly, all factions condemned the speech's most significant element for the first time, Palestinian resistance was equated with terrorism by a Palestinian leader.
While Mazen was condemning the "militarisation of the intifada" and vowing to "end all terrorism against the Israelis" in a slip of the tongue he began to say Palestinians but quickly reverted to the text Palestinian resistance groups were organising.
On June 8, four Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip were killed in a joint operation between Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The symbolism of three of the most important political factions working together, in a clear rejection of Mazen's statement, was not lost on the Palestinian population.
Mazen was quick to condemn the operation, however. The logical outcome of his Aqaba speech soon became apparent, when Israel and the US described the attack as a "terrorist act", despite the fact that the four killed were on-duty Israeli soldiers in a military base on occupied territory.
A couple of days later, Israel attempted to assassinate one of Hamas' key leaders, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, by firing seven missiles at his car in the Gaza Strip. The assassination of Rantisi failed, but four people, including a seven-year-old girl, were killed in the attack.
The Rantisi attack was just one illustration of Israeli violence against the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Over the last month, more than 60 Palestinians have been killed. The vast majority were civilians trying to go about their daily lives.
Dozens of houses have been demolished by the Israeli military either as punitive measures or to clear space for Israeli military operations. Nightly raids continue in all areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and movement between towns and villages is almost impossible for Palestinians.
The backdrop to these attacks is a prolonged discussion over a hudna, or temporary cease-fire. Mazen and Mohammed Dahlan, responsible for the Palestinian security apparatus in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, have been conducting daily meetings with representatives from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and Fatah's armed wing, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, to try to work out details of such a cease-fire.
No-one seems to agree, however, on what hudna means. The main Palestinian factions have all made it clear that they will not relinquish the right to armed resistance against Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip under any circumstances.
They argue that as long as the occupation continues, they will continue to struggle against it. They have stated however, that they would consider suspending attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, provided that the Israeli military also stops killing Palestinian civilians and assassination of Palestinian activists.
All of the major factions argue that these types of operations inside Israel are absolutely necessary in the current circumstances as a form of self defence. They believe that while Israel has the most well-equipped army in the Middle East, and continues to arbitrarily kill Palestinian civilians on a daily basis with US-supplied helicopters and missiles, the only weapon Palestinians have to resist these attacks and cause Israeli society to feel the consequences of the occupation are the "human bombs".
This argument has a great deal of resonance in Palestinian society. Israel's assaults have reduced the majority of the population to a level of desperation unparalleled in Palestinian history. Many see armed resistance including attacks on Israeli civilians as the last line of defence. The consequences of these attacks on Israel in particular, the most severe economic depression since the founding of the state in 1948 is seen as a vindication of their effectiveness.
Meanwhile, the PA is pushing for an end to all armed resistance, including a halt to attacks against soldiers and settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While it is very unlikely that any of the Palestinian factions would agree to this, Israel argues that this does not go far enough. Israel, supported by both the US and European Union, is insisting that the Palestinian Authority completely disarm and dismantle all of the armed factions.
All of the major players agree on one point: organised armed resistance to the occupation, in whatever form, constitutes the major threat to the US-backed "Road Map" aimed at halting the intifada. The Israeli government understands that it cannot halt attacks on the Palestinian civilian population because these attacks are an integral part of the occupation strategy of collective punishment.
Israel adopted this strategy as a response to the mass demonstrations which occurred in the first few months of the intifada. By randomly killing Palestinian civilians, including a large number of children who were participating in demonstrations, Israel hoped to suppress these demonstrations.
More recently, the arbitrary shelling of residential neighbourhoods and shooting at individuals trying to bypass military checkpoints, is aimed at inflicting a large number of civilian deaths, in order to demoralise and demobilise the population. Other elements of this policy of collective punishment are mass, arbitrary arrests and the strangulation of the Palestinian economy and social life by harsh closures and curfews.
If a temporary cease-fire was reached that ended attacks on both civilian populations, Israeli policy would quickly unravel especially if armed resistance continued against its military presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Tel Aviv fears the scenario of southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah led an armed uprising against Israeli troops and eventually forced the withdrawal of the Israeli military from Lebanese territory.
Israel has thus stated that it would not be satisfied with a temporary cease-fire, and considers the complete disarmament of the Palestinian opposition as a pre-requisite of moving forward with the road-map plan.
The PA, or at least the Mazen wing, also appears to have this aim in mind. Mazen is widely detested on Palestinian streets and is strongly condemned, not only for his speech at Aqaba, but also for his renewal of PA "security coordination" with the Israeli military.
While Israel and the PA are discussing plans to give the PA responsibility for security in parts of the Gaza Strip and Bethlehem, the population is questioning why the PA should be providing "security" to an occupying army especially while the collective punishment of Palestinians continues.
The PA understands that the major obstacle to this arrangement will come from the leading resistance factions, in particular Hamas. On June 24, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that moves by the European Union to blacklist Hamas as a "terrorist organisation" came at the urging of the PA. While this may be deliberate Israeli disinformation, many Palestinians are highly suspicious about the depth of security coordination between the Israelis and the PA.
The cease-fire discussions have largely pushed aside media coverage of another key demand of the factions — a unified leadership for the day-to-day tasks of the intifada. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP and Fatah have agreed to form a leadership committee to determine policy and steer the daily progress of the intifada. While this agreement has yet to be translated into practice and will no doubt be resisted by the PA, it is strongly supported by the population. As well as determining the forms and tactics of the armed struggle, the leadership committee would also seek to control the Palestinian negotiators and the direction of any negotiations with the Israeli government.
From Green Left Weekly, July 2, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.