It is clear that Israel has succeeded casting doubt on the existence of a Palestinian partner with whom it can make peace.
Implicit in Israel’s argument is the fact that it has been anxiously awaiting for a Palestinian leader who would lead the people on the road to peace. Yet the irony is that Israel has failed miserably to elect leaders who can effectively lead Israel down the road of historical reconciliation with the Palestinians and with the Arab world, even while genuine peace initiatives have been presented - to which Israel failed to respond.
Fateh’s 6th convention in Bethlehem has incited considerable speculation, given the bickering among its members. By and large, these battles are not over, although there is relative consensus among Fateh’s members with regard to peace with Israel. The disputes, however, are personal, over key positions within the movement. These internal imbalances are not a negative sign, but Fateh needs, more than ever, to unite behind one leadership.
Fragmented as it may be, Fateh remains the only credible movement in Palestine that is committed to a diplomatic approach and the principles of the Arab Peace Initiative. Its leader, President Mahmoud Abbas is known for his enthusiasm to reach peace with Israel based on two states for two people in the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.
That said, Fateh leaders are clear about their future approach in case the peace process runs aground. If there is no progress towards a two-state solution, Fateh will look at the one-state solution, or else unilaterally declare an independent state based on the June 4 borders. Explicit in Fateh’s statements is that the diplomatic approach cannot continue if there is no political quid pro quo from Israel. In this case, Fateh may resort to all legitimate means to fight occupation and settlers.
On the flip side of the coin, Israel is not ruled by a peace coalition. A vast majority of the government coalition does not support the two-state solution. Were it not for American pressure, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not have accepted the two-state solution. This is equivalent to a rejection of the two-state solution concept.
After the eruption of Al Aqsa Intifada, the Israelis maintained the mantra that “there is no Palestinian partner” or “there is nobody to talk to” or “Arafat is irrelevant”. Such statements were meant to justify Israel’s obstinate stance on a peace agreement based on 1967 borders and a just solution to the refugee problem. Accordingly, Arafat was kept out of the limelight until his eventual death.
The last real leader in Israel was Yitzhak Rabin who led his country to peace with Jordan and with the Palestinians during the Oslo process. All Israeli premiers after him have been interested more in political survival than in leading their country on the road to peace with the Palestinian and the Arab nation. They have been hamstrung by domestic politics.
On the other hand, Abbas has been doing what it takes to make peace with Israel. It is true that Palestinians are divided, but the division that weakened Abbas is an outcome of the failure of the peace process that Israel has contributed to in no small amount.
The statements coming from Fateh’s 6th convention in Bethlehem point to one fact: Palestinians are willing to make peace with Israel. However, the moderation of the Palestinian mainstream movement depends, to a great extent, on Israel’s peace policy. If the Israeli government maintains its procrastination tactics under various pretexts, Israel will be facing a generation of angry Palestinians. The region is running short on patience over what is happening in the occupied territories. In other words, it is moderate Abbas now or a kind of Hamas leader later, and if it is to be the latter, dark days are ahead.
Front Page Features