Abbas' shadow government

Despite Mahmoud Abbas remaining true to his slogans, we expected that he would be more tactful when dealing with a new political arena and would not use language to provoke Hamas, the resistance forces or the Palestinians at home and abroad. We expected this in light of the victorious feelings (though he never mentioned the word victory) that spread as a result of the heroic achievements in the Gaza Strip, or at least, out of respect for the martyrs’ blood and sacrifices.

However, Abbas did not hesitate to discredit one of the most important stages in Palestinian history since the Mandate, Al-Aqsa Intifada. The intifada united all popular forces under the banner of resistance. He also did not wait long to express his opinion about events in the Gaza Strip, condemning the approach first, and Hamas second, saying that if Hamas had accepted the Egyptian initiative (rejected by all factions), we would have been spared many losses and destruction. He went on to refer to the “shadow government” in Gaza, saying they had made the decision to wage war, disregarding the fact that it was in response to aggression against them and they had not started the war.

This is not surprising of course, as he deals with Hamas as a political opponent (I do not want to use the term enemy) and with its weapons as political, intellectual, and personal rivals. However, his sense that Hamas’ political growth among the masses after the battle in Gaza is no less important, and because of this, he is trying to change its image concerned by the impact it could have on his popularity and his movement.

If Hamas had accepted the Egyptian initiative, then a lot of destruction and bloodshed would have been avoided, but the same would be true if the Palestinian people accepted the current Palestinian Authority’s offer in the 1970’s, the “village associations”. The same would have applied to the Algerian people if they had agreed to remain under colonialism, the Vietnamese if they had agreed to remain under occupation, and while I am listing examples, I’ll mention that the same would be true for the French had they remained under German occupation, and many others.

Surrendering to and begging the enemy and accepting their bread crumbs of a land that was occupied would spare blood and sacrifices, but would be the pretext for accepting an imbalance of power. The Palestinian people are worth no less than the people who have resisted and won, including the Lebanese who drove the invaders out, as well as the Iraqis. These are examples from recent history but there are countless examples from the past.

Is it not enough that Abbas has been begging for the past ten years, preceded by the Oslo Accords 21 years ago and has reached an impasse; has it not proved to be pointless? Hasn’t the effectiveness of resistance been proven during experiences of the free peoples of the world? As for resorting to international institutions, it is even more useless and everyone knows it will not lead to anything (Has Abbas forgotten the Hague Court’s ruling against the Apartheid Wall in 2005, which stressed the withdrawal to the 1967 borders, and which is considered to be stronger than Resolution 242?)

It has been over two years since Mahmoud Abbas stopped threatening to resign from his position if the enemy did not give him what he wanted, although he did sometimes (vaguely) threaten to dissolve the Palestinian Authority, which no one actually takes seriously. However, what he has surely and firmly said is that the third Intifada will not happen as long as he is alive. Abbas and a handful of those around him have taken the power and privileges that come with the PA as well as the profits and investments. They do seem to want to return to resistance and repeat the experience of his predecessor, who was besieged in his compound while he, personally (Abbas, along with his rival Dahlan) were plotting against him and planning his assassination.

According to Abbas’ logic, another path could have been taken to prevent the aggression and reduce the losses. This path could have been a comprehensive Intifada in the West Bank that clashes with the occupation military checkpoints, thus forcing Netanyahu to stop the aggression

Also, shouldn’t he have rejected the Egyptian initiative instead of being one of its godfathers, given that he knows it is a document that will force the Palestinians to surrender? Instead it is a prelude to a distorted solution, supported by other Arabs who back this miserable initiative.

The new initiative that was agreed is different to the first initiative, which did not mention an airport or seaport, the easing of the blockade, which was dependent on the stability of the security situation, which is actually determined by the enemy not any other party.

I would also like to remind everyone that Abbas’s support for the Egyptian initiative was to show courtesy to the Egyptian government in the hopes that they would keep away his archenemy Mohammed Dahlan. Dahlan, is not a political adversary (there is no difference in their political discourse), but a personal adversary. Those who would like to know the details of this should refer to Dahlan’s interview with Wael El Ebrashy, which could be found on YouTube.

What is most ironic about Abbas’s statements is his talk about a shadow government in Gaza, as if Hamas and the resistance in the Gaza Strip need to wait for Hamdallah’s government to decide what they should do and whether they should respond to the attacks or not. Then if they were to respond, they would wait for the government [PA] to give the resistance its weapons stockpile to fight.

Abbas explained his reality, and I have said this previously; he wants to annex the Gaza Strip to the West Bank through negotiations and security coordination. He does not want this heroic battle to be a victory for the resistance and a step towards uniting everyone behind the resistance.

We have no hope in this man, and the Palestinian situation will continue to be lost as long as he is leading the ship and as long as Fatah continues to promote the spirit of partisanship. He also has another element of support, via the regional alliances that Netanyahu repeatedly praised during the war.

Hamas and the resistance’s response is the big question that those concerned should answer. The reconstruction bribes should be ignored, perhaps even be the basis for swapping with the resistance’s weapons.

Their (Abbas and his gang) hopes, of course, are that elections will be organised in a few months, during which they will hold a gun to the heads of the Palestinians, forcing them to either elect them and give them legitimacy or expose themselves to siege, destruction and the prevention of reconstruction.

This path must be revolted against, the blood of the martyrs and heroism imposed on it. An authority for the people at home and abroad needs to be elected, an authority that will decide the course of the struggle, while the administrative authority continues to be managed consensually. Another big question will be, what if Hamas wins? Will the PA surrender its authority or will it give Hamas empty ministries, as they did in 2006?

These are big questions for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all the honourable Palestinian people at home and abroad after this heroic battle, and they should answer them away from diplomatic conversations with a miserable man who is not even courteous to them, but undermines and trivialises their struggle and their victory.

Translated from Al Jazeera net, 31 August, 2014

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.