ANALYSIS:Agency accused of leaking document may have acted out of frustration, writes MICHAEL JANSEN
THE LEAKED Palestinian documents hold few surprises for Palestinians who have long suspected President Mahmoud Abbas and his negotiating team of capitulating to every Israeli demand. However, the release of documents revealing positions taken on specific issues could contribute to the collapse of the meagre authority Abbas and the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority still possesses.
This would strengthen demands for fresh presidential and parliamentary elections, which were due in January 2009 and 2010, respectively.
Palestinian commentators make the point that neither Abbas nor the legislative council, which ceased functioning in 2007 due to the Fatah-Hamas rift, have legitimacy.
Ziad Abu Zayed, a former minister for Jerusalem affairs, argued that if the revelations were borne out, damage to the Palestinian Authority would be “severe”. He said Fatah and Hamas must end division and have elections as soon as possible in order to fill a political vacuum where there is “no accountability” and “no parliament”.
Azzam Tamimi, a commentator close to Hamas, rejected the possibility that Hamas would reconcile with Fatah leaders who were prepared to make unacceptable concessions. He asked: “Can they be trusted to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people?” While he agreed the release of the documents may have weakened Fatah and strengthened Hamas, he argued that the Palestinian people themselves were the real beneficiaries of the leaks, because they can now trace the course of the negotiations.
Palestinians also benefit because the documents show Israel has not been a “partner” dedicated to the resolution of the conflict. Instead, Israel has rejected major concessions made by an increasingly desperate Palestinian side.
As a result, many Palestinians are calling for the dismantling of the Fatah-dominated Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which has failed to achieve its ultimate objective of ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory captured in 1967.
Independent legislator Mustafa Barghouti argued that the current peace process, based on negotiations between the parties, has failed. “What we need is a different approach based on international law and international legitimacy” which regard as illegal Israel’s settlement of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and continuing control of Gaza.
The PLO has never made East Jerusalem a priority, and has been prepared to relegate negotiations on its fate to an indefinite future.
Whatever standing the PLO had in the city was created by Faisal Husseini, the organisation’s representative in Jerusalem until his death in 2001. He collected title deeds to land, homes and offices with the aim of asserting Palestinian ownership, and personally intervened against Israeli demolitions and expropriations. The premises of his Arab Studies Centre was invaded by Israeli police soon after his death and the contents seized. Since then, the PLO has been largely absent from the city.
Members of the negotiations support unit accused of leaking the documents might very well have done so out of frustration over the adoption of policies seen as damaging to the Palestinian cause. The unit was set up in 1998 to provide raw material for formulating policy by the PLO’s negotiations department, then headed by Abbas. Britain provided it with expertise and financial help; Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have contributed funds. The unit recruits Palestinian and international experts to survey developments on the ground and draft briefing papers for negotiators, who generally ignore this material.
The unit made a key contribution to the 2008 International Court’s ruling that Israel’s West Bank wall and settlements were illegal, but the breakthrough judgment was not exploited by the PLO and was dismissed by Israel and its influential backers in the international community.