The late professor, Edward Said once called him
‘moderately corrupt.’ The formidable intellectual died before seeing
the moderate corruption of Abbas morphing into a wholesale onslaught on
democracy, freedom and every noble principle the Palestinians ever
fought for. I wonder what Said would have said after seeing the people
of Gaza suffering beyond comprehension while Abbas and Olmert meet in
the latter’s Jerusalem residence, exchanging words of praise and vowing
their undying commitment to ‘peace’.
A photo released by the
Israeli government Press office on February 19 showed both leaders
leaving another futile meeting in Jerusalem, with Olmert — aware of the
cameras flashing all around them — holding an umbrella for the widely
grinning Abbas. The post card-like scenario is of course part of the
continuing charade of peace talks, deadlines and deadline extensions,
interrupted by temporary quarrels, which are sorted out by US envoys
before resuming more talks.
But how long can Abbas and Olmert carry on with this charade?
For
Olmert, the objective and endgame are clear: stall until a ‘solution’
can be finalised and imposed on the Palestinians. This in turns depends
on the finalisation of the construction of the illegal settlements, the
wall and the network of Jewish-only bypass roads in Occupied Jerusalem
and the West Bank. However, Olmert’s poor standing among the Israeli
public and the aforementioned ‘demographic threat’ will not make it
possible for him to stall indefinitely. Still, with the US’ record of
unconditionally backing Israeli policies, Olmert will remain in a
relatively safe spot, regardless of which major presidential candidate
goes on to claim the White House.
One can hardly say the same
about Abbas. His usefulness for Israel, and thus the US administration,
is entirely dependent on his level of ‘cooperation’, which essentially
means ensuring Palestinian disunity, fighting Hamas, and remaining a
pawn in the US’ imaginative view of the entire region (whereby
‘moderates’ stand united against ‘extremists’ and ‘rejectionists’).
Yet,
unlike other Arab ‘moderates’, Abbas lacks all leverage. He ‘presides’
over an ever shrinking entity, itself under military occupation. Many
of his people regularly accuse him of ‘treason’, or at best, of
‘selling out’. On top of this, his party is falling apart. Mohammed
Dahlan is already acting with the air of presidency. Now based in
Egypt, he has been gathering support for himself amidst scattered talks
about his desire to form an alternative party to Fatah.
Worse
yet, Mohamed Nazzal, a visible member of Hamas’ political bureau in
Damascus told Aljazeera.net on February 19 that despite Hamas’
insistence on the inclusion of Marwan Barghouti (a leading Fatah figure
who is greatly supported by the movement’s youth and strongly disliked
by the old guard) in any future prisoner swaps, Israel has removed the
latter’s name from the list, at Abbas’ behest.
Abbas’ lack of
any meaningful political vision is also promoting other members of his
team to speak of political programmes entirely inconsistent with his
own style. Yasser Abed Rabbo, the Secretary General of the PLO
Executive Committee told Reuters in an interview on February 20 — views
which he repeated to AFP and Palestinian radio in Arabic — what
Palestinians should consider should talks continue to falter. “If
things are not going in the direction of actually halting settlement
activities, if things are not going in the direction of continuous and
serious negotiations, then we should take the step and announce our
independence unilaterally.â€
Abbas’ answer was his intent to continue negotiating, and that he was “optimistic and hopeful.â€
It’s
unclear where from Abbas’ hope originates. He stands on very shaky
grounds, not only in his conditional relationship with Israel, the US
and his own party, at home and abroad, but with Hamas as well. His
earlier rhetoric about Hamas’s ties to Al Qaeda and the ‘forces of
darkness’ are softening, but he knows he has no mandate to reach out to
his opponents. But it is increasingly clear to the world that isolating
Hamas means the continuation of Gaza’s mass hunger and suffering. This
is so extreme that even Europeans are reportedly rethinking their
stance on Hamas, which the EU had deemed ‘terrorist’.
If Abbas,
however, tried to rethink his relations with Hamas, he would be
abandoned by Israel and the US, and might find himself a victim of a
calculated coup led by his party’s strongmen. If he continues with the
charade of endless and futile talks with Israel, the patience of his
people would eventually run out. Considering all of this — Abbas’
shared responsibly for the plight of Gaza, his anti-democratic legacy
and his inability to reunite his faltering party — the president seems
condemned to a lose-lose scenario, one which would take no less than a
miracle to put right.