DFLP Site
The Web
 
 
 

Articles & Analyses

 
Does the Deal of Century Correspond with Oslo’s Commitments?
By: Moatasem Hamadeh
October 27, 2018
 

In the return to the "deal of century", which the region is living in light of its repercussions, it must be reaffirmed, that it is not a prior detailed plan, that will be proposed on the negotiation table, but a regional political project, from which its elements, is the liquidation of the Palestinian issue in preparation for the establishment of “peace” in the region, the integration of Israel into it, and the establishment of a regional alliance against Iran, to besiege and rehabilitate it and bring it under the control of the American project.

A political project, that will be implemented step by step, until the elements of its success are fully realized. Therefore, the rejection of this project and its opposition, is not by statements only, nor by words or by anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda, but is in confronting the steps of this project. Otherwise, what is the value of the verbal opposition while the project is paving its way, and creating field facts, whether in the Palestinian case, or in the regional situation?

We mention this as a comment on the reactions of some parties, which accused the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine of interfering in the official leadership in its opposition to the "deal of century" and considering this leadership as the "only party" that still hinders the "deal".

We denounce this by saying that the Palestinian official leadership was at the forefront of the Arab parties that welcomed Trump's announcement of the "deal of century" in Riyadh, and announced that it is beside Saudi Arabia in everything it adopts regionally, and that the official leadership was eager to reveal the "deal", and it has bet that the «deal» will bring a solution to the political impasse in which the Palestinian issue has been entered, during more than a quarter of a century of futile negotiations. Also, this official Palestinian bet has been in a side, while the other Palestinian parties have been in another, warning of the seriousness of the bet on the United States, and demanding the implementation of the suspended decisions of the Central Council by a unilateral decision by the president of the PA since 5/3/2015, until the "deal" was born, by the declaration of Trump that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, thus, he let the official leadership down, which, in turn, admitted that it was a "slap" for it, not a deal, and promised to return the slap.

Since then, the same talk has been repeated, while the "deal" is being realized on the ground: the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the recognition of settlements and the "right" of Israel to annex settlements, the call for dissolving UNRWA and cancelling the right of return, cutting a part of the American funding for the PA, equivalent to salaries of prisoners and families of martyrs, and imposing a siege on the office of the PLO in Washington.

Consultations between the concerned Arab capitals and Kushner-Greenblatt are still forming a mediator between the official leadership and the United States. Along with the open line between the PA intelligence services and the US intelligence agency in Washington, according to the admission of the PA president personally.

Against all these steps, the official leadership has done none except statements. Not even one step in the face of American steps, but there is an "understanding" of European and Arab advices not to escalate the verbal position with the Trump administration, on the pretext that the solution in the Middle East will only be under the auspices of the United States, and Washington is the only party qualified to pressure Israel to accept the next settlement. This is on the American side, but on the Israeli side, things seem to be the best. As security coordination is continued as it is, even after the decisions of the Central and National Councils. The recognition of Israel still exists, without any change, and the dependence on the Israeli economy is still in progress, and the talks behind the walls, between Israeli ministers and their counterparts in the PA, deal with the development of financial relations and developing more joint economic projects, which deepens the link and dependency of the Palestinian economy with the Israeli economy.

This is precisely what the Deal of Century calls for, as it states that replacing the national project (independence and sovereignty) to be replaced with the Israeli project, i.e. peace in exchange for the economy, as proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In response, the Palestinian masses have been on the streets since 6/12/2017, the date of Trump's declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Things have developed in the Gaza Strip, since 30/3/2018 in the marches of return and breaking the siege. On 15/1/2018, the Central Council adopted a series of decisions that redefine the relationship with Israel, which have been suspended by the official leadership. Then, they were reaffirmed by the National Council on 30/4/2018, and the official leadership is still suspending them, in the context of European and some Arab capitals' promises to not take any practical steps against the Trump administration, whose envoys to the region, confirm that the "deal of century" retains a seat for the official leadership, along with the Israeli seat. So, where is the opposition in all this, as claimed by those who were quick, to distort the positions of the Democratic Front? And why ignoring the role of the popular movement and all national, democratic and Islamic forces, and the decisions of the Central and National Councils, and claiming that the official leadership is "only" who opposes the Deal of Century?! Why do they ignore that the official leadership is suspending the decisions of the Central and National Councils, whose application would move it from the verbal opposition to the field opposition?

What is proposed above does not come in the context of complex riddles or mathematical equations, but they are questions that their answers are included within.

• The official leadership has two options: either political negotiations as a single option, alone, or combining the struggle in the field by all forms of resistance, with the political and diplomatic act.

• The official leadership has two options: either direct bilateral negotiations with Israel (as stated by the PA president at the opening of the National Council) or an international conference under the auspices and supervision of the United Nations, in accordance with its relevant resolutions.

• The official leadership has two options: either adhering to the Oslo Accords, the Paris Protocol and their obligations, or the commitment to the decisions of the Central and National Councils, with all the necessary field actions.

• The official leadership has two options: either to return from the coup of 13/9/1993 on the national program, or to continue the policy of coup, by all the consequences of this policy of continuous coups against the national establishment.

• The official leadership has two options: either giving priority to the social class and factional interests of the bureaucracy which controls the decision, as represented by the “political kitchen”, or prioritizing the national interests, which requires the re-formulation of national and social alliances, and the regional relations.

It is clear that the official leadership is still committed to its options, mentioned above and refuses to move to the alternative national option.

So as not to be accused of infringement, let us read together what was stated in the column of Hassan Al-Batal (14/8/2018) in the Palestinian newspaper "Al-Ayyam", a journalist who is skillful in explaining things and putting them right by using few words.

He says that the destruction of the Oslo Accords, will lead to the destruction of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian official leadership in the PLO. Thus, it is unlikely that Oslo will be abandoned. He was also surprised to demand that the official leadership to disengage from the Israeli economy.

Therefore, the interest of the Palestinian Authority, as a political choice, and the official leadership of the PLO, is with keeping Oslo.

So says one who’s close to the PA and its leadership.

Which leads us to a question: How can we oppose the "deal of century", and at the same time adhere to the Oslo Accords?

Doesn't this question explain the real reasons behind the decision of the official leadership to suspend the decisions of the Central and National Councils, and to cover this by fabricating a battle of words with the "deal of century", which is nothing but a throwing of dust in the eyes.

 
Notes:
Moatasem Hamadeh is a member of the Political Bureau of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Translated by Rawda Abo Zarqa
Revised by Ibrahim Motlaq
 

Share |
dflp-palestine[at]dflp-palestine.net
copyright © 2004 - dflp-palestine.net