Where Have All the Palestinian Moderates Gone?

In October 1999, while researching a book on Palestinian politics, I had coffee with then Palestinian Minister of Labor Rafik Natsheh on the patio of the InterContinental Hotel in Amman, Jordan. A member of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)'s Fatah Central Committee, Natsheh was a consummate political insider, but he was also a courageous and outspoken critic of Palestinian President Yasir Arafat's authoritarian tendencies at a time when deference to Arafat and support for violent resistance constituted the rough center of Palestinian politics. During our meeting, Natsheh struck me as soft-spoken, thoughtful, and politically "moderate." I subsequently wrote in my book that "it was clear that he [Natsheh] had become, surprisingly, a supporter of Oslo" -- the 1993 accord that laid the foundation for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to end the conflict.

I hadn't thought about that Amman meeting in years, until last week, when I read an interview with Natsheh in the pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi, where he said that Fatah, the faction of the PLO that led the campaign to forge peace with Israel through direct negotiations, "does not recognize Israel's right to exist." He added that Fatah had likewise never abandoned the armed struggle. What's more troubling, Natsheh's authoritative interview is the latest in a series of previously deniable comments by current and former senior Fatah officials -- including one-time Gaza security chief Mohammed Dahlan -- that undercut the fundamental premise of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking: the renunciation of violence and the acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

What seems clear to me now, as Fatah gathers in Bethlehem this week for its first general assembly in more than a decade, is that the recent statements of Natsheh and his fellow "moderates" signal a broader sea change in Palestinian politics that has occurred over the past decade. Democratic politics are indeed taking shape among Palestinians, but they're mirroring the increasingly extreme views of the population at large. In short, the desire for popular support has not moderated Hamas, but has radicalized Fatah.

No doubt, years of stagnation in the negotiations -- attributable at least in part to Fatah-orchestrated violence -- have proved frustrating and radicalizing for many Palestinians. Yet the recent statements from senior Fatah leaders also smack of political expedience. Fatah, it seems, is looking to shore up its political base, and that base has become more radical in the past several years. Recent surveys suggest that 52 percent of Palestinians support armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel. So Fatah, which in recent years has lost ground to the Islamist terrorist organization Hamas, could be trying to better position itself by competing for militant votes.

Regardless of why Fatah is openly tacking to the right now, the statements have profound implications for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. The leading faction of the PLO that signed the Oslo Accords with Israel -- in which both sides agreed to "recognize their mutual legitimate and political rights ... and achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process" -- now says it never consented to the terms of the deal. Fatah's formal rejection of the Oslo terms of reference essentially constitutes the PLO's renunciation of the entire agreement.

Ever since Hamas militarily took over Gaza in 2007, advocates of the peace process have been promoting reconciliation between the Fatah-led government and the Islamist terrorist organization in the hopes of jump-starting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The Obama administration via its peace envoy George Mitchell is even pressing for Syrian assistance in forging a Palestinian national unity government. Given Fatah's latest pronouncements, however, one wonders how this development would help move the talks along. Today, Fatah and Hamas are fighting for power in the Palestinian Authority (PA), but philosophically speaking, their positions on Israel appear closer than ever.

I had always believed that there were moderates within Fatah -- like Natsheh -- who supported peace negotiations and sought reconciliation with Israel. Even with the ascendance of Hamas, one could always point to a "peace constituency" among the Palestinians. But when people like Rafik Natsheh start denying Israel's right to exist, it's a sign that the Palestinian political center has shifted. Moderates still exist and the PA continues to take some positive steps -- such as removing militant preachers from West Bank mosques and cooperating with Israel on security matters -- but its actions seem more focused on preventing Hamas inroads than promoting peace with Israel. Indeed, recent reports indicate that the PA is currently naming streets in the West Bank after terrorists.

Sixteen years after the Oslo Accords -- and following repeated claims of Oslo's death -- Natsheh's comments confirm the end of that peace process. For years, Washington has placed its hopes in Mahmoud Abbas, the PA president who also serves as Fatah's leader. But in the absence of any denial coming from Abbas, the comments of Natsheh -- a close associate of Abbas -- stand as Fatah's official position. Today, Fatah may be better than Hamas, but the organization is clearly no panacea. Based on Fatah's disposition toward Israel, it is all but assured that a Palestinian national unity government will not advance negotiations. The sooner the Obama administration recognizes Fatah's shortcomings, the sooner it can start developing a new paradigm for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

AUGUST WEST

1:00 PM ET

August 4, 2009

The Israel Lobby Speaks

Let's be clear: WINEP is part and parcel of The Israel Lobby, and thus has zero credibility. Whether Rafik Natsheh made the statements claims he made is open to question.

Assuming the statements are correct, the answer to the question of where went all the Palestinian moderates is simple: Israel turned them into radicals. Israel's vicious attack on Lebanon, its siege of Gaza, its continued theft of Palestinian land, its relentless rejection of its promises to the Palestinians, its eternal flouting of UN resolutions and international law, its reflexive use of collective punishment, have told the Palestinians loudly and clearly that Israel's vision of peace is the total absence of Palestinians. They must be gone. This guarantees radicalization of the Palestinian population. Israel's actions beg the conclusion that this is intended.

PSMOSES

1:25 PM ET

Israel's responsibility

In general, I agree with the statement that Israel turned Palestinian moderates into radicals. So often, people approach the Israel-Palestine debate as if there are two equal sides, when in fact there are tremendous geographic, population, resource, international support unbalances. Regardless of any harm done by Palestinians, Israel must be held accountable for its severe misuse of power. Likewise, Israel must be responsible for initiating and maintaining peace, because they are the side with all of the power. As they continue to refuse to take the high road, the radicalize Palestinians who have little besides anger and frustration to fuel them.

http://www.enewse.com/

MARTINBLANK

4:17 PM ET

Thanks for the laugh.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the source, but this is truly pathetic. It's absurd to claim that Natsheh's comments represent Fatah's policy of abandoning Oslo - particularly on a day that Abbas reinforced his party's commitment to the Oslo Agreement and the 2003 roadmap in front of the Palestinian Congress. You want to debate this issue using cherry-picked statements and public opinion polls to bolster your case, but you conveniently ignore that the only party to Oslo that HAS actually publicly reneged is Israel. I can't believe this was even published.

JACOB BLUES

10:00 PM ET

No shock, no surprise, no change

SCHENKER Schenker's only mistake is to hold the idea that there was a group of Palestinian moderates to begin with within the executive circles of Fatah and the PLO.

For years Yasser Arafat played the double mouth game of speaking moderation in English, while continuing his extremist rants calling for violence in Arabic.

The supposed moderation of Abu Mazen neglects his own initial campaign for the presidencey of the Palestinian Authority when he outright rejected fighting any of the militant groups calling them, the heros of Palestine.

His call was for one Authority and one Gun, meaning that Fatah would control the weapons and hence the violence.

But let's not kid ourselves. The above apologists offer up the usual mantra of excuses as to why the Palestinians have some sort of deranged entitlement policy to terrorism.

JOHN1

2:53 PM ET

August 5, 2009

Dissimulation

David Schenker bases this troubling essay on two unsupportive legs: the first is his assertion that the "leading faction of the PLO that signed the Oslo Accords with Israel... now says it never consented to the terms of the deal." Wait -- is Rafik Natsheh the official spokesperson for Fatah or the PLO? No. Schenker knows this. He also knows that Fatah is _in the middle_ of a general assembly, so how could a new position already be agreed to?

More dissimulation: Schenker writes that "Fatah's _formal_ rejection of the Oslo terms of reference essentially constitutes the PLO's renunciation of the entire agreement." _Formal?_ Hello??? There is no formal rejection, and Schenker must know this.

Schenker tries to cover himself, claiming that "in the absence of any denial coming from Abbas, the comments of Natsheh -- a close associate of Abbas -- stand as Fatah's official position." This is a joke. Or, sadly, propaganda. I thought WINEP was supposed to be the thoughtful element of Israeli advocacy, not the 'I'll-say-anything-to-demonize-the-Palestinians' quarter?

But the whole story is based on the canard that nations have a "right to exist" in the same way that individuals have rights. Nations have rights to the extent that they have diplomatic relations with other states and are able to exercise power independently or thru allegiances. If a Palestine and Israel in the future accept a set of created "rights" belonging to each state, fine. But the citizens of each state don't have to proclaim their fealty to the other's "rights." Many members of Netanyahu's coalition believe Palestinians have no political rights. That's fine. But what is the official state policy -- that's the question.

Maybe Schenker's concluded that desperate times call for desperate inane measures -- he'd be joining so many of the loony acts of hasbara coming from Israel's foreign office and elsewhere lately.

What's depressing is that FP is willing to pass this off as "analysis." Is there editing going on here?

J THOMAS

9:43 PM ET

Hello?

Given the level of disinformation that has been going on, media commentators who post about israel should state whether they consider themselves jewish, and whether they consider themselves zionists.

I am not a zionist.

Mr. Schenker, are you a zionist? If you are a zionist, would you be willing to swear that you will tell the truth despite being a zionist?

ARADI

12:16 PM ET

August 6, 2009

Fantastic idea. Perhaps put a

Fantastic idea. Perhaps put a little "star of David" icon next to their names? The public needs to know.

Looking at the comments above, one might wonder how some people are so entrenched in their "Israel bad" views that they are unwilling to accept even what a Palestinian leader says, openly, in an interview to an Arab newspaper. Until you get to J Thomas' comment, that is.

VLADW

2:51 PM ET

What?

Mr or Ms J Thomas assumes that Zionists (Jews who believe their People deserve a State of their own, in the Old Land of Israel - like every nation on Earth) lye as a matter of principle. This is racism, aka anti-Semitism, in its purest form. Which other people would you, Sir or Ma'am, deny the right of statehood and accuse of systematic lies? If you single out Jews and their statehood, you, Sir or Ma'am, are a bigot and ought to be ashamed of yourself.
If you doubt that Arabs in particular and Moslems in general cannot accept the very idea of a Jewish sovereign nation in the Near East, then you have not even tried to find out what is what. Israel is a strong, modern nation of over 6 million people. It is the homeland of over one million Arabs, who enjoy more rights and prosperity than in any of their Arab neighboring states. It will not lay down and play dead regardless of the pressure. The Jews have been living with one or another form of persecution and libels since times immemorial. They will survive this one, too. Now they have a strong State.
As far as international law goes, since the UN Charter never abrogated or took over that responsibility, the applicable law is the League of Nations Palestine Mandate of 1922, in which the Brits were asked, and they assumed the task, of building a homeland for the Jewish people. Sounds crazy? Maybe. But the law is the law.
ALL wars Israel had to fight were defensive wars. Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Sinai have been acquired while responding to aggression and is thus in full compliance with international law. The "special treatment" the so-called Palestinians get, combined with the singling out of Israel and Jews for criticism is nothing but pure racism. SO: get a grip. Take on another cause. Try, e.g. Darfur: genocidal Arabs killing off fellow Moslems, who happen to be black and sit on some land the former would like for themselves. Look at the facts and figures.

8:12 AM ET

August 7, 2009

"Mr or Ms J Thomas assumes

"Mr or Ms J Thomas assumes that Zionists (Jews who believe their People deserve a State of their own, in the Old Land of Israel - like every nation on Earth) lye as a matter of principle."

No, you got that wrong. I observe that zionists lie very very often, presumably as a pragmatic thing.

Kind of like used car salesmen. Instead of trying to sell used cars they try to sell a particular set of foreign policies.

So, what would you think if you were looking at buying a car, and somebody was giving you advice and he said the best car for you is a Buick, and then you find out his brother-in-law owns the Buick dealership? You wouldn't think his advice was particularly unbiased, would you? But he's trying to pass himself off as just a car expert.

So I say, when zionists try to pass themselves off as foreign policy experts and they propose zionist policies for the USA, they ought to have the decency to tell us they're zionists first. And if they swear to tell the truth anyway I'll pay more attention to their advice.

It isn't antisemitic to say that zionists tend to lie than it's anti-used-car-salemen to say that car salesmen tend to lie. But of course they'll make a big show of indignation if somebody says so. It's part of the sales routine.

11:11 AM ET

August 10, 2009

Funny how you began with

Funny how you began with "whether they consider themselves jewish", and in the later comment remember to use the cleaner "Zionist". Like used car salesman, hmm...