RADICAL IN THEORY

Link

August 15, 2009 at 6:51 am (Associate Post, Corrupt Politics, Fatah, Palestine, Palestinian Authority)

Some attending Fatah’s long-awaited Sixth Congress in Bethlehem hold fast to their principles, but pragmatism remains the order of the day, Khalid Amayreh reports

---

A Fatah supporter holds a portrait of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat during a celebration in the streets of Balata refugee camp in the West Bank city of Nablus

Fatah has been in a jubilant mood having succeeded in holding the movement’s Sixth Congress in Bethlehem in the West Bank despite a host of serious obstacles, including charges by the group’s second-highest ranking leader, Farouk Kaddumi, that Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas had connived with Israel to poison late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Hamas, too, made good on its threats to prevent Fatah delegates in the Gaza Strip from travelling to the West Bank to take part in the Bethlehem conference.

However, Hamas’s desperate feat seems to have had little impact on the deliberations of the conference and may actually have had a boomerang effect, namely provoking many Fatah delegates to give their votes to Muhammed Dahlan, an arch foe of the Islamic group who in the mid- and late- 1990s carried out a harsh crackdown on Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

To the chagrin of Hamas, Dahlan has won a seat on Fatah’s Executive Committee, as so did a number of anti- Hamas Fatah figures, such as Tawfik Tirawi, former head of the Palestinian Authority (PA) General Intelligence, Hussein Al-Sheikh, another former security chief, and Azzam Al-Ahmed, head of the Fatah parliamentary caucus.

Rafiq Natshe, a veteran Fatah leader who apparently failed to win a seat on the faction’s executive body, spoke to Al-Ahram Weekly shortly before the election results were announced. He described the outcome of the conference as amounting to a “renewal” and “re-birth” of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) mainstream faction.

“Fatah after Bethlehem is going to be different. We can say that the conference constitutes a renewal, a sort of rebirth for the movement. Fatah will once again be the revolutionary vanguard that will lead the Palestinian national struggle for freedom and liberation. And in shouldering this task, we will use all means under our disposal, including armed struggle.”

Natshe said the main goal behind the conference was to revitalise Fatah and restore its internal unity. “I think we have achieved this goal. Yes, there still will be non-conformist voices here and there, but this happens all over the world.”

He described the “bad chemistry” between Abbas and Kaddumi as having to do more with a form than with substance, saying that talk about disunity within Fatah was highly exaggerated.

In his speech before the conference, Abbas struck a conciliatory note toward Kaddumi, saying, “We are all human beings, we make mistakes, but you will always remain our brother.”

Natshe argued that the Fatah Sixth Congress was “certainly bad news for Israel and for those betting on the capitulation of the Palestinian people. “True, the conference was held under the Israeli occupation, but I challenge critics to cite a word, or phrase or statement made during the conference that can be interpreted as suggesting that Fatah is being co- opted or pressured to change its constants. On the contrary, from watching the Israeli media, we see that Israeli leaders are attacking the conference.”

Natshe added: “Besides, we had organised two general elections under the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian National Council (PNC) held a session under the Israeli occupation. So why was it okay then whereas it’s a crime now?”

The Weekly asked Natshe if he thought the rift between Fatah and Hamas was becoming more insurmountable than before the conference. “Without prevarications, the answer is yes,” he said. “Hamas made a big mistake by barring Fatah delegates from travelling to the West Bank to participate in the conference. This generated a lot of bitterness among Fatah delegates.”

Hamas resorted to this measure in the hope that Fatah would press the PA to free hundreds of Hamas supporters languishing in PA jails and interrogation centres. On Monday, 9 August, Fadi Hamdan, a 27-year-old Hamas detainee, died in PA custody. This latest death — the third this year — is likely to exacerbate the already poisoned atmosphere between the two largest political camps in the occupied territories.

Natshe is generally viewed as a “moderate Islamist” within Fatah. He says that Fatah and he personally will continue to press for a speedy reconciliation with Hamas.

With regard to the peace process with Israel, Natshe seemed more radical than the bulk of his fellow Fatah delegates. He said Fatah didn’t and wouldn’t recognise Israel and certainly would never ask other Palestinian factions, including Hamas, to recognise Israel.

However, the PLO did recognise Israel as part of the Declaration of Principles, or Oslo Accords, and it did so without receiving reciprocal Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state. This generated a lot of indignation within the Palestinian community and gave Fatah’s critics — especially Hamas — a lot of propaganda ammunition to criticise Fatah and the PLO for “surrendering” to Israel and compromising Palestinian rights.

In its 30-page political platform, issued on the second day of the conference, Fatah vowed to refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. However, the movement apparently refused to annul its erstwhile recognition of Israel even though Israel continues to refuse to recognise Palestine.

In interview with the Weekly, Natshe expressed what observers describe as “maximalist attitudes” vis- à-vis a prospective peace deal with Israel. He said Fatah would never accept the concept of land swap with Israel whereby the Jewish state would retain dozens of large colonies in the West Bank, especially in East Jerusalem, in return for compensating the Palestinians with a swathe of land in Israel itself equal to the annexed settlements both in quality and quantity.

“Fatah doesn’t believe in a land swap, and Israel must return to the borders of 4 June 1967. The refugees must also be repatriated to their homes and villages. This is Fatah’s position, and it will remain unchanged. The Palestinian Authority and government are free to think as they see fit, but Fatah is also free to think as it sees fit,” said Natshe, overlooking the nearly umbilical relationship between the PA and Fatah.

It is highly likely that Natshe’s views enjoy overwhelming support among Palestinians at home and in the Diaspora. However, it is also unlikely that the current Palestinian leadership will take a strong stance on issues such as East Jerusalem and the refugees, mostly in deference to the United States and also in order to retain hope of working out a peace deal that would allow the Palestinians to have their own state.

Natshe’s tone is viewed as more rhetorical than real, even by Fatah’s standards. One Fatah delegate to the conference, who asked to remain anonymous, remarked that Fatah’s pronouncements shouldn’t be taken literally and certainly not too seriously. “When it comes to rhetoric, it can be limitless. But in when it comes to the real test, I am afraid that arm wrestling can produce results.”