Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
by B. Shanee
Former Nablus Mayor Ghassan Al-Shak'a: The Security Coordination Serves The Palestinian Interest
Introduction
The PLO Executive Committee (image: alray.ps)
*B. Shanee is a research fellow at MEMRI.
Endnotes:
The contacts with Israel, and
especially the security coordination with it, are the topic of an ongoing
internal debate within Palestinian political circles and among the Palestinian
public. Calls for ending the security coordination and severing the ties with
Israel are heard from time to time from officials in the various Palestinian
factions within the PLO.
The debate on
the security coordination reached a turning point on March 3, 2015, when the
PLO Central Council resolved to "end all forms of security coordination
with the Israeli occupation authorities," on the grounds that Israel was
not complying with agreements it had signed with the Palestinians.[1] Following
this decision by the Central Council, calls were heard to implement it in
practice, including from prominent Fatah members such as Marwan Al-Barghouti,
'Abbas Zaki and Tawfiq Al-Tirawi. However,
Fatah movement chairman Mahmoud 'Abbas, who is also president of the Palestinian
Authority (PA) and chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, refrained from
taking any action to stop the security coordination, and even clarified that it
continues as usual.[2] As the largest faction in
the PLO, it is Fatah that determines the policy of the movement as a whole.
Hence, in the absence of any action to implement the Central Council's decision
by either the Fatah leadership or the PA (which is Palestinian executive
authority), the Central Council's decision remained effectively meaningless.
Recently, the
PLO Executive Committee also announced that it decided, in its May 4, 2016
session, "to immediately begin implementing the Palestinian Central
Council's decisions regarding limiting the political, economic and security
relations with the occupation authorities [i.e., Israel]," and this due to
"Israel's disregard of signed agreements and its insistence on destroying
the two-state solution."[3]
The PLO
Executive Committee's decision apparently reflects a change in Fatah's policy
that was decided upon in a meeting of the Fatah Central Committee on May 2,
2016. According to Fatah official Saeb Erekat, who is also the PLO
secretary-general, in this meeting the Fatah Central Committee decided to advise
the PLO Executive Committee to implement the PLO Central Council's decision
from March 2015 by ordering to end the economic and security ties with Israel.
Erekat explained that the Fatah Central Committee's decision was a response to
measures recently taken by Israel that threatened the vision of an independent
Palestinian state – including Israel's rejection in April of the French
initiative for convening an international conference on the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict; Israel's refusal to refrain from entering Area A territories, an well
as reported initiatives by Israeli politicians to apply Israeli law in some
Area C territories.
Mahmoud
'Abbas, who has so far pursued a policy of continuing the security coordination,
refrained from commenting on the Executive Committee's decision, except in a
speech on the occasion of Nakba Day, in which he implied that the decision
would be implemented if Israel failed to comply with signed agreements. He said
that the Palestinian leadership would continue "to implement the
directives of the PLO Executive Committee to limit relations with Israel in
accordance with [Israel's] degree of commitment to the signed agreements."[4] Another
PA official that commented on the decision was the head of the Palestinian
national accord government, Rami Al-Hamdallah, who said on May 16, 2016 that "the PLO's decision requires
establishing mechanisms for implementing it in practice, and therefore the
security coordination with Israel still continues."[5]
The Executive
Committee's decision to limit the relations with Israel sparked a heated debate
in Palestinian society, with many figures calling to implement the decision and
others speaking against it. An unusually harsh response came from the former
mayor of Nablus, Fatah member Ghassan Al-Shak'a, who is himself a member of the
PLO Executive Committee. He argued that it is neither possible nor desirable to
sever the economic and security relations with Israel, since such a move would
adversely affect the lives of the Palestinian people. Palestinian National
Council (PNC) member Faisal Abu Khadra, and another Palestinian official who
declined to identify himself, likewise criticized the decision, saying it was unrealistic.
Talal 'Okal, a columnist for the PA daily Al-Ayyam, wrote that even the
Palestinians do not believe that the decision can be implemented, and therefore
Israel certainly can't be expected to believe it.
This criticism
of the decision, and especially Al-Shak'a's statements, sparked
counter-criticism from people who called to implement the decision and rebuked
Al-Sha'ka for his position and the PA for refraining from actualizing it.
The following
are translated excerpts from some of the critical responses to the Executive
Committee's decision, and from some of the counter-criticism published in the
Palestinian media in response to Al-Shaq'a's statements.
The PLO Executive Committee (image: alray.ps)
Criticism Of PLO Executive Committee's
Decision: It Is "Neither Feasible Nor Desirable"
Former Nablus Mayor Ghassan
Al-Shak'a: The Security Coordination Serves The Palestinian Interest
As stated, the Executive
Committee's decision sparked unusually harsh criticism from former Nablus mayor
and Executive Committee member Ghassan Al-Shak'a. He said that the Central
Council's decision had been taken by members who were out of touch with the
day-to-day reality in the Palestinian territories and who had acted out of
emotion. He explained that the Palestinian economy is completely dependent on
Israel and that the security coordination with Israel serves Palestinian
interests. Hence, he said, it is neither feasible nor desirable to sever the
economic and security relations with Israel. Al-Shaq'a added that, since the
negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships have failed, dialogue
should start at the level of the people and only later expand to involve the
leaders.
Al-Shaq'a's
statements were published on local news websites, such as the Nablus city
website Nablus Live, as well as on the Kofia Press website, which is associated
with 'Abbas's rival, former Fatah official Muhammad Dahlan.
Al-Shaq'a was
quoted as saying: "The decision taken by the Palestinian Central Council
in its latest session [on March 2015], namely that relations with Israel must
be severed, was an emotional decision, since most of the Central Council
members came from abroad, from Chile, Romania, Australia, America and other
countries, and their view of the Palestinian issue is more emotional than it is
practical and realistic – unlike [the view taken by] us, the members [who live]
inside Palestine... [True,] the job of the PLO Executive Committee is to
implement the Central Council's decision, and not to reject it, accept it or
vote on it, but in our last session we [nevertheless] expressed our reservations
regarding it and our opinion about it...
"[I
maintain that] we kid ourselves when we say we are able to boycott Israel or sever
our relations with it, especially in the two domains of security and economy,
which are fundamental to the lives of the Palestinian people and the residents
of the occupied West Bank... [If we sever these relations] how can we bring
fuel and flour [into our territories] and how can we keep the power running,
etc.? Israel controls us on land, in the sea and in the air. If we decided,
hypothetically, to sever our economic relations with Israel and cancel the
Paris Protocol on economic [relations], could we actually live without them?
That is the question we must put to those who demand day and night to end the
economic and security coordination and to sever the relations with Israel...
"When
Israel wants to enter a village, city or refugee camp, it does not care whether
they are in area A, B or C, because we have no sovereignty over the land, with
or without security coordination. Security coordination serves our interest. If
the PA wants to launch a security campaign to enforce law and order, as it did in
Nablus when it brought in 1,500 security officers [from all over the West Bank]
– would it be able to do this without security coordination with Israel? Of
course not. [Furthermore,] there are 1,000 individuals wanted [by Israel] who are
[held] in bases of the [Palestinian] security apparatuses throughout the West
Bank. If we suspend the security coordination, Israel will surely arrest them
immediately, and that will be to the detriment of our young people...
"In
deciding to sever relations with Israel, we in the Central Council and the
Executive Committee went too far, because as a leadership, government and
authority we are unable to implement such decisions at this stage.
[Implementing them] will harm our people, their [daily] lives and their
interests, and we do not want to make things even harder for them [than they
already are]...
"The alternative
is negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis that will begin at the
bottom, at the level of the people, [and only later involve] the leadership.
The other kind of negotiations [i.e., negotiations between the leaderships]
failed in the past because the people did not believe in them... I am against
bilateral meetings and negotiations [between the leaders] because they will
ultimately fail..."[6]
Palestinian Official, PNC Member:
The Decision To End Security Coordination Is Unfeasible
Criticism of the PLO Executive
Committee's decision was also expressed by other elements. A Palestinian
official who declined to identify himself told the London-based Al-Hayat daily,
"The PA is incapable, at this stage, of stopping the security coordination
with Israel." He assessed that the scope of the security coordination
would be reduced, but that it would not be stopped altogether.[7]
Palestinian National Council member Faisal Abu Khadra,
who writes for the Al-Quds daily, called the Executive Committee's
decision unrealistic, said it shouldn't be implemented, and called for going
back to the outlines of the Oslo Accords. He said: "With all due respect for
the Central Committee's decision to end security coordination, it is a complete
mistake, because the Palestinian police strength does not compare to that of
the occupying army – and, furthermore, ending the security coordination would
mean ending the Oslo Accords, which constitute the only agreement that recognized
the PLO. This [agreement] is an accomplishment that cannot be denied, and
Israel longs for the implementation of this decision [stopping security
coordination] so that it can cancel the Oslo Accords. In light of the Palestinian
schism, the Arab schism, and the Arab Spring that destroyed everything that was
built over seven decades, we have no choice but to implement the Oslo
Accords..."[8]
Columnist For PA Daily: The
Executive Committee's Decision Is Inappropriate In Light Of The Difficult
Situation Of The Palestinian People
Talal 'Okal, a columnist
for the PA Al-Ayyam daily, also criticized the Executive Committee's decision,
stating that it was inappropriate in light of the difficult situation of the
Palestinians, and adding that Israel cannot be expected to believe in the
decision because the Palestinians themselves do not believe in it. He wrote:
"Personally, I don't know how it is possible to make decisions that are so
important and grave while the Palestinian situation continues as it is. As far
as I'm concerned, despite the danger in the PA's continuing to act in
accordance with what is set out for it in the Oslo Accords, I don't think that
a change in this situation [i.e. ending security coordination with Israel] will
be right, in light of the tragic and difficult situation of the Palestinians
today...
"The question is, how is it possible for the
Palestinian leadership to escalate the conflict [by means of stopping the
security coordination] while the Palestinian fortress is weak, fragile, and
conflicted at home, and the schism within it is harming it so severely?
"Whoever decides to escalate the conflict must
[first] restore national unity and national decision-making unity; he must
rebuild the Palestinian leadership institutions, from the PLO to the PA, and
must regain the trust in Palestinian society, that is always suffering from
being ignored and marginalized. Whoever decides to escalate the conflict must
allow the power of the intifada to be realized, as a popular, peaceful intifada
against the occupation, and must do so within an inclusive national strategy agreed
upon by the entire national [public]...
"The truth is that if we, the national Palestinians,
do not believe [in the PLO Executive Committee's decision], then how can we
expect the occupation to believe what it hears, while [on the ground] it sees
things that contradict [this]?"[9]
Reactions To Al-Shak'a's Statements By PA
Elements And Palestinian Public Figures
As noted, criticism of the
PLO Executive Committee's decision, and particularly the statements of Ghassan
Al-Shak'a, sparked counter-reactions from the Palestinian media and public. In
the media, this came from three main elements: a) supporters of 'Abbas and the
PA who defended the decision as a political choice by the Palestinian
leadership; b) Palestinian elements identified with Fatah who advocate stopping
security coordination with Israel and were overjoyed at the Executive Committee's
decision; and c) Hamas elements, which also want an end to security
coordination and which seized on Al-Shak'a's statements as an opportunity to
criticize PA policy.
Additionally, Al-Shak'a statements about the Executive
Committee decision were met with mixed responses across social media. For
example, the Facebook page of the Nablus local news website
(Facebook.com/NablusCity) published comments taking issue with his statements.
While many Palestinian readers supported Al-Shak'a, saying that he had made "realistic
statements that are far from imaginary" and are "logical and
convincing," many others objected to what he had said and attacked him
personally, posting comments such as "Negotiations always lead to a dead
end. We need a real and honorable intifada. The homeland needs sacrifice."[10]
Columnist For PA Daily: The Executive
Committee's Decision Was A Bold Step, Criticism Of It Is Objection For Its Own
Sake
In his column in the PA
daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 'Omar Al-Ghoul, who was an advisor to former Palestinian
prime minister Salam Fayyad, justified the Executive Committee decision, saying
that the criticism of it was unfounded. He said that all the Israeli government
operations and statements by its ministers indicated that "the Israeli
leadership is not interested at all in opening any window to the option of a
political arrangement. Therefore, the [Palestinian] leadership, headed by
President 'Abbas, must implement the Executive Committee's decision, and limit
political, economic, and security relations with the Israeli state [which]
reneges [on agreements]. True, every Palestinian knows in advance that this
decision will bring the opposite result [that is, negative consequences] to the
Palestinian people, particularly since the coordination has not been limited
only to security coordination but includes all aspects of Palestinian life. [But
it was the actions of Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu and his extremist
ruling coalition... that brought the Palestinian leadership to take this bold
step. Yes, [this decision is] bold, because of the dangerous and difficult consequences
that it will have, that will harm all the Palestinians no matter what their
political, social, economic, religious, and cultural status. But this step is
[also] bold because it will hurt the Israeli side, that never for a moment
thought that the Palestinian leadership would dare to take it.
"The Palestinian leadership will express its skill
with its ability to creatively implement [the decision concerning] ending the
coordination in a way that will, to the greatest extent possible, not harm the interests
of the people... Those who doubt the leadership's decision are not doing so for
any grounded reason, but are objecting for the sake of objecting.
Unfortunately, some of those who are raising doubts [i.e. Al-Shak'a, who was
head of the PLO international relations department during the Oslo negotiations]
were part of the negotiating team at Oslo. Nevertheless, the leadership must
continue to adhere to, and to reexamine, the supreme national interests of the
people, and must throw the ball into the court of Netanyahu and its backers."[11]
Former Arafat Advisor: "We Oppose
The Dissemination Of A Culture Of Defeatism Instead Of The Culture Of
Resistance"
In contrast to Al-Ghoul's moderate
criticism, Hanan 'Awad, a member of the PNC and former advisor to Yasser Arafat, launched a scathing attack on Al-Shak'a's
statements. Addressing Al-Shak'a, 'Awad pointed out that his statements were
disseminating defeatism and weakness, and reflected the Palestinian leadership's
deception, since this leadership was not really taking steps to oppose the
occupation and gain independence for the Palestinians.
With regard to Al-Shak'a's argument that PLO
representatives abroad were making emotional, irrational decisions, 'Awad
answered: "The Palestinian people within [Palestine] and abroad is one,
and bears the spirit of the [Palestinian] cause and struggle. The Palestinians who
live abroad are originally from Palestine. It is they who have lost their
homes, and been forced to emigrate, and it is they who are waiting to [actualize]
their right of return... The emotional and conscience aspect [of the decision] is
the main basis of the practical aspect, because the national identity comprises
raging emotions that connect the Palestinian to his national land and culture,
and they are the collective conscience of the masses.
"With regard to the security aspect and our need for
security coordination with Israel..., we want to continue the achievements of
the president, so that [we will be able to] declare a state and mobilize international
support for this move. By means of this achievement, the Palestinian state will
have full control over its borders, crossings, air[space], and sea, and the occupier
will have no right to invade its territory."
She continued: "Your declarations, [Shak'a],
regarding protection of the wanted men contradict your initial statement that
Israel can invade any territory and arrest and kill as it wishes, as it does
every day... We know that our battle against the occupation is not easy. We oppose
the dissemination of the culture of defeatism instead of the culture of
resistance, in all its forms...
"What popular negotiations do you want [there to be]
after 22 years of a war of elimination, horror, targeted killings, arrests, and
expulsion? This, as the Israeli government, which has the support of its
people, turns to extremism and to putting down roots in our land. How [can] we
call for more submission and normalization [with Israel] while the global
boycott movement has managed to influence the countries of the world to boycott
Israel politically, socially, and economically?
"Thank you. Thank you. We have been deceived."[12] *B. Shanee is a research fellow at MEMRI.
Endnotes:
[1] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida
(PA), March 6, 2015.
[2] Al-jazeera.net, January
24, 2016.
[3] Al-Ayyam (PA),
May 5, 2016.
[4] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida
(PA), May 15, 2016.
[5] Paltoday.ps, May 16, 2016.
[6] Kofiapress.net, May 8, 2016.
[7] Al-Hayat (London),
May 15, 2016.
[8] Al-Quds (Jerusalem),
May 15, 2016.
[9] Al-Ayyam (PA), May 9, 2016.
[10] Facebook.com/NablusCity,
May 8, 2016.
[11] Al-Hayat Al-Jadia (PA),
May 9, 2016.
[12] Pulpit.alwatanvoice.com,
May 10, 2016.
B. Shanee
Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9238.htm
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
