Why do the international media ignore statements made by the "moderate" Fatah in the West?


By Kahina
December 2, 2010
Share

The Western-backed ruling Fatah faction in the West Bank has just concluded its fifth convention in Ramallah with a series of statements that will make it virtually impossible for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to reach a deal with Israel that includes any compromises.

A statement issued by the Fatah Revolutionary Council, which consists of more than 100 Fatah officials, said no to almost every proposal or idea that could have paved the way for some kind of a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

No to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state; no to any solution that calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders; no to the idea of a land swap between Israel and the Palestinians; no to any resuming peace talks with Israel unless construction in settlements and east Jerusalem is halted; no to understandings between Israel and the US regarding the future of the peace process; no to supplying Israel with US weapons; no to recognizing the Western Wall's significance to Jews and not to a new Israeli law that requires a referendum before any withdrawal from Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

With a position like this, it is hard to see how any progress could be achieved when and if the peace talks ever resume. What Fatah is actually saying is that Israel must accept 100% of our demands if it wants peace. This is the only "yes" that Fatah had to offer.

The Fatah statement should not come as a surprise to anyone: this has in fact always been the faction's position, especially since the beginning of the peace process with Israel. Fatah has actually been consistent in its policy and its positions have not changed over the past two decades.

The problem is not Fatah as much as it is the Western governments that continue to ignore what Fatah is -- and always has been -- saying. The international media is also to be blamed for ignoring or downplaying such statements made by the "moderate" Fatah in the West Bank.

Abbas could not make any concessions to Israel in light of the Fatah declaration even if he wanted to.

The message that Fatah has once again sent to all Palestinians is that no one has a mandate to reach a deal with Israel that does not meet all their demands. This is why the Fatah communiqué was published in Arabic in Fatah-controlled media outlets – to make sure that Palestinians read every word and understand the message.

Of course Abbas, who attended the Fatah gathering, has endorsed the statement, vowing that he would not make any compromises on any of the Palestinians' rights.

Abbas is well aware of the fact that he would be condemned as a traitor if he dared to make any concessions to Israel on core issues such as the status of Jerusalem and the "right of return for Palestinian refugees."

It is for this reason that Abbas's predecessor, Yasser Arafat, refused to accept anything less than 100% of his demands at the Camp David summit in 2000.

Abbas knows that the Arab and Islamic street is still not prepared to accept a solution that would include making significant concessions to Israel.

The Palestinians are ruled by two powers that want 100%: Fatah says it wants 100% of the territories captured by Israel in 1967; Hamas wants 100% of all the land, including Israel proper.

Sadly, there still is no third Palestinian party that is willing to stand in the middle.

The communiqué sounds more like a battle cry than a political statement, particularly given the fact that it ends with the declaration: "Revolution until victory, victory, victory!"

In this part of the world, it is important to listen to what people say in their own language -- not only what they say in English to US and European governments and journalists.

This article was written by Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh.

Readers who want to help the Palestinians should follow his essays: http://www.hudson-ny.org/author/Khaled+Abu+Toameh

COMMENTS

Kahina

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 13:12

Rate this:

0 points

Reading the above, have any of our armchair politicians any suggestions as to whom the Israelis should be having peace negotiations with?


Jon_i_Cohen

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 14:19

Rate this:

1 point

This is just a repeat of the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 where after the '67 war the heads of state of 8 Arab countries formed the policies of most Arab states participating in the conflict with Israel, with the dictum of "Three NOs":-

1.NO peace with Israel
2.NO recognition of Israel
3.NO negotiations with Israel
With this resolution, the Arab states slammed the door on any progress towards peace with Israel and this ultimately led to the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the impass we are in today.

And, yet again, as Abba Eban said, the arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This time in 2010 it is Abbas, (the terrorist in a suit).

As i have always said, there is no-one to negotiate with as the other side are not interested in negotiation but annihilation of Israel.


mattpryor

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 14:35

Rate this:

1 point

It is a clear indication of the bias of the Western media that although they show so much interest in the "peace process" and Israel, the radical and revolutionary nature of Fatah is completely hidden from the world - other than those who know where to look.

Thank you for posting this Kahina.


Kahina

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 14:45

Rate this:

1 point

Exactly Jon.

The reason that I post this is because the British media, and especially the JC never highlight this.

They are brainwashing the British public and giving a distorted view of Israel politicians. They give air to the people who are ignorant of these very facts.

Most people make their opinions from what they see and read in the media.

That is why we have the naive views of Tsam, Mick Davis, Stanley Walinuts and co.

Don't blame them, blame the media.

And....

Post the editorials that the JC ignore. Make a difference!


mattpryor

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 15:01

Rate this:

0 points

I'm not sure if it's deliberate malice or just laziness. Neither fills me with confidence in our "liberal, free media".

Thank heavens for the interweb.


Kahina

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 15:46

Rate this:

0 points

I think it's laziness. They prefer just to receive an eloquent press release that they can re-hash to make it look like they investigated it.

Unfortunately our Israeli embassy are not very good at putting out their own press releases. They're on the defense instead of the attack.

Then the rest of the newspapers are padded out with stories relating to their advertisers. Holidays, restaurants, shopping, etc.

Infact, because of the blogs, they have to do less and less work. They can now make some of their reporters redundant.


jose (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 20:34

Rate this:

0 points

By the way, maybe the local antisemites should read the Fatah Charter again.
It was supposedly modified after Oslo, to remove the old useless articles about violent struggle. But I can't find the modified version. Probably due to my incompetence with computers and Internet. Maybe some of the antisemites could help me...

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS