A Point of View: The Fatah factor

Let's start with what I believe is the obvious: Fatah and Hamas are two very different organizations. Not only are they at each other's throats whenever they have the opportunity, but they speak very different languages. Hamas talks of an Islamic state, Fatah of a Palestinian national state. Hamas calls for Israel,s destruction, Fatah talks of two states living side-by-side. Hamas proudly takes credit for terrorist attacks against civilians, Fatah in public statements decries such attacks.

In other words, it is not helpful and not accurate to suggest, as some do, that there is no difference between the organizations. Hamas cannot be a partner for peace. Fatah could be.

The words "could be" point to the continued ambivalence toward Fatah. The potential for a peace partner is there but it has not been realized. We've seen this ambivalence in the behavior of Israeli governments over the last 15 years: engagement during the Oslo process and at Camp David, followed by non-engagement during the second intifada, followed by re-engagement during the tenure of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

It was in this context that Fatah held its first conference in 20 years. It provides an opportunity, based on examining the declaration of the gathering and seeing the document through the prism of recent events, to assess whether Fatah is more than a potential partner for peace.

There are things in the declaration that should remind us that the Fatah of today is not like that which existed before the Oslo process. Negotiations are referred to over and over again. United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, the bases for a peaceful mutual recognition of the parties, are mentioned, as is the Arab peace initiative. 

In other words, there is a basis for considering that indeed Israel may have someone to talk to. And in the current international environment, I doubt that Israel would stand in the way of a resumption of talks with the Palestinians.

But does the Fatah conference indicate anything more than that the parties should talk? Is there evidence that finally Israel has a peace partner, that negotiations can lead to a compromise agreement that can serve the interests of both peoples?

There isn't much here to give hope in this regard, even for those who want to believe that reflected here may be negotiating rather than final positions. Take the issue of refugees and the so-called "right of return."  It is one thing to maintain their support for the refugees and for UN resolution 194, which supported refugee return. That is the usual stuff.

But now they have added the refugee issue to justify an additional combative policy - their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Rather than indicating a softening on the right of return, which is a non-starter for Israel, Fatah has reinforced its unwillingness to give it up.

Several statements were blunt, hard-line and confrontational.  One resolution approved by the Fatah members explicitly blamed Israel for the 2004 death of longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and called for an international investigation into his death.  Another unaccountable resolution stated a refusal to negotiate with Israel until it ceded all of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. These are hardly the words of moderation that we had hoped for.

Similarly, on the subject of terrorism:  The criticism of the Palestinians in recent years has been that while, starting with Arafat on the White House lawn, they committed to the end of terrorism, in fact terrorism continued to be a strategy of choice for the Palestinians in the 1990s and 2000s.

The demand was that they live up to their rhetoric and combat rather than encourage the terrorists in their midst. Now, Fatah has once again left open the door for terrorism, in its words as well as its actions. It used classic language justifying violence against civilians - "Fatah adopts all legitimate forms of struggle along with clinging to the option of peace."

Standing up and acting unequivocally against terrorism is essential if Israel is to be expected to make significant concessions for peace. This is not encouraging.

So, too, the Fatah demand that all prisoners be freed. The message again is one that has to be disturbing to Israelis who look for signs of change among the Palestinians. That Palestinians would seek the release and amnesty for many prisoners is understandable. But to insist on the release of the most brutal murderers of innocents indicates a continued attitude that Israeli life is worthless.

These disappointing developments in Bethlehem were met with near silence by the international news media, where there was little if any criticism on the editorial pages of Fatah's statements reaffirming support terrorism or its maximalist demands.

There was not a single word of rebuke, either, from any of the peace partners with a vested interest in Fatah as a moderating force in Palestinian society, including from members of the Quartet - the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia - all of whom chose to remain mum rather than speak out against Fatah's unwillingness to take more constructive stances toward peace.

The bottom line: Fatah is not Hamas and it may be worthwhile to bring together the parties to talk. But let's not unreasonably raise expectations of a major breakthrough when even the more moderate side of the Palestinian camp continues to think in the old ways.