Palestinian-Zionist Negotiations, Secret and Public

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

The Zionist newspaper Haaretz reported, in its issue of March 30, 2016, on progress in what it called secret negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and the Zionists. It said security negotiations are under way between the two sides, aimed at opening the way for the Palestinian Authority to carry out its security activities in the areas classified “A,” under the Taba Agreement, or what is sometimes called Oslo II.

Global media outlets had already reported on this subject before, saying these were negotiations conducted in secret to grant the Palestinian Authority broader powers to preserve what is called “security” in the densely populated Palestinian areas.

The Negotiations Never Stopped

The Palestinian Authority said it had halted negotiations with the Zionists, without refusing to resume them, pending a halt to Zionist settlement building in the West Bank. Even though the Authority has said this again and again, it has not appeared to hold firm to its own word, since direct negotiations between Palestinian officials and Zionist officials have taken place in several locations, including Jerusalem and Amman.

Palestinian officials met with Zionists in the presence of King Abdullah in Amman, and the two sides also met in Jerusalem, not to mention repeated meetings between Palestinian security officials and Zionist security officials. Indirect negotiations between the two sides have also continued through mediators such as the United States, Jordan, and Egypt.

In practical terms, the negotiations never stopped, even if they stopped in the media sense — that is, there are no longer political negotiations before the television cameras, but they continue hidden behind lies, and the Palestinian people was, as usual, the last to know.

The Zionists are well aware of what is happening, because their officials address them in clear language and do not hide the truth of what is happening, and the negotiators likewise brief their people on the most important subjects addressed, agreed upon, or disputed. The Palestinian, meanwhile, mostly lives in the dark, because the Palestinian official does not brief his people — and if he does brief them, he lies.

Repeated negotiations take place, and most of what we, as Palestinians, know about them is that they are “constructive,” and that the Palestinian negotiator enjoys great professionalism, astonishing the enemy with his superior capabilities that have achieved continuous failure. The Israelis now know about the secret negotiations through their own media, fed with information from both the security and political levels, while the Palestinian people gets its information from Zionist media.

The Goal of the Secret Negotiations

According to my information, the Palestinian side, the security side especially, argues that the Zionists provoke the sons of the Palestinian people when they enter Palestinian population centers, stirring up the public and inciting them to act against the Zionist army. The Palestinian Authority feels embarrassed before people when Zionist forces enter areas falling under Palestinian security influence, and shrinks from the talk of people who attach the label “traitor” to the Authority at every opportunity.

This means the entry of Zionist forces into the Authority’s security areas produces two outcomes that serve neither the Zionists nor the Palestinian Authority: provoking people, so that some decide to use stones and knives, and perhaps others decide to use weapons; and further wounding the Authority, mocking it in a way that affects its prestige before the Palestinian public. Both outcomes inflict great harm on Israel, from the angle of fueling Palestinian mobilization against the Zionists, and from the angle of weakening the Authority and its capacity to serve Zionist security.

The Palestinian Authority’s argument is strong, and the conclusion it draws is sound; for this reason, the Palestinian security services advised the Zionist army’s commanders not to enter the areas classified “A,” or at least the major cities of the West Bank, and it appears the Zionist army has warmed to the idea without rushing into it immediately — the Zionists, as usual, first study at length whatever is proposed to them, to see whether it fits their logical standards, and so they decided to test the matter first, for two purposes: gauging the validity of the Palestinian premise and the security services’ capacity to contain Palestinian mobilization, and drawing the Authority into secret negotiations the Zionists would not keep secret.

Both the Palestinian and Zionist assessment is that the Zionist army’s absence from the scene in the major Palestinian population centers would radically reduce points of friction between Palestinians and Zionists, thereby lowering the number of knife and stone operations Palestinians might carry out. In turn, the presence of Palestinian security forces in the population centers would not provoke Palestinian youth, nor create points of confrontation — meaning the level of Palestinian mobilization against the Zionists would decline, without confrontations between the public and Palestinian security.

It appears the statement by the head of Palestinian intelligence some time ago, about the Palestinian Authority foiling about 200 operations against the Zionists, was not made idly, particularly since Abbas affirmed he was aware of the matter and saw it as an act protecting Palestinians.

The statement constituted a message to the Zionists that Palestinians do not wish to expand Palestinian mobilization against them, and that they stand ready to confront young men’s and women’s plans against the army. This statement was widely welcomed in Zionist circles, media circles especially, and many Zionists praised the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to shackle Palestinians and prevent their struggle against the Zionists. This statement served as reassurance to the Israelis, or a message that the Palestinian side understands its role and responsibilities, and that there is no need to doubt the Authority’s role in suppressing Palestinian mobilization.

Building on this argument, the Palestinian Authority worked to convince the Zionists of the necessity of meeting to reach an understanding on respecting the Palestinian Authority’s security standing, so that it does not remain a laughingstock before its own people, and Israel ultimately agreed to hold negotiations on this matter, and American efforts may have entered the picture to soften positions.

It is clear — according to Zionist media — that Israel agreed, in principle, to respect the Palestinian Authority’s security role, provided the Authority is first tested in terms of time and place — that is, it agreed to grant the Authority a security role in specific locations within Area “A,” for a limited period, its extension contingent on the Authority’s capacity to contain Palestinian mobilization.

According to reports, Israel returned to its previously known formula and proposed testing the Authority in Ramallah and Jericho first — that is, Israel would refrain from entering the two cities and refrain from arresting people in them, as a trial phase. But it appears the Authority still demands extending its security responsibilities over all of Area “A,” or at least over its major cities. Perhaps the Authority has people who are aware of the deception of “Gaza and Jericho First” in 1993, which amounted to a deception the Palestinian people paid the price for.

The Dialectic of Palestinian Security

“Defending Zionist security is defending the security of Palestinians and the lives of their children” — so goes the Authority’s own political argument, repeated by officials and official spokespersons for the Authority. But how can this be?

Quite simply: if Palestinians refrain from fighting and confronting Israel, Israel will have no justification for killing Palestinians, arresting them, or demolishing their homes — meaning what drives Israel to punish Palestinians is their resistance to the occupation, not because repression is a basic feature of occupation itself. The Authority’s official advice to the people insists on the necessity of not resisting, appealing to people not to encourage their children to fight the Zionists. Blame, according to this argument, falls on the people and the youth, not on the occupation, which is, by definition, terrorism — occupation is terrorism by definition, because it uses armed force to subjugate people and achieve political gains.

The Authority’s argument adds that its own actions, including searching schoolchildren’s bags, are aimed at preserving these children’s lives by preventing them from using knives or any combat tool against the Zionists. In other words, resistance is rejected by the Palestinian Authority because it produces a Zionist reaction that claims some Palestinians as victims, and could lead to homes being demolished and trees uprooted. Accordingly, Palestinians must remain calm and not provoke the occupation, so that the occupation can then rest assured of a Palestinian people coexisting with the occupation.

The truth is that this is an argument against history — the logic is clear, and history is as clear as the sun, regarding the reaction of a nation suffering brutal occupation. A people living under occupation is expected to rise up and confront the challenge, aiming to obtain freedom and independence, and this entails sacrificing life, money, effort, tree, and stone.

Peoples offer the dearest things they have for freedom and liberation, and a nation living under occupation is usually afflicted with losses far greater than the losses the occupation itself incurs, because of a lack of equipment and military capability. The occupation is usually militarily superior to the nation living under it, and its brutality greater and harsher — but these losses are the price of freedom, and if a nation is stingy with its sacrifices, it should not expect others to fight for its freedom and hand it victory on a platter of their own blood.

No nation can be liberated for free, or by others’ arms, and if the Palestinian people is searching for liberation through others — such as American pressure on the Zionists, or hiring fighters from other states — it will never be liberated. There is no escaping sacrifice, and anyone who says he is trying to preserve Palestinian blood through coordination with the occupation is misleading, contrary to historical logic, and contrary to the logic of freedom. It is clear the Authority works to suppress those engaged in resistance and eliminate resistance, but tries to wrap its duties toward Zionist security in a display of concern for Palestinian blood.

Had the Authority truly cared about blood and about liberation, it would have worked diligently to direct young people, according to a well-studied plan, toward confronting the occupation. Had Palestinian youth been directed toward resistance, the people would not have suffered the great scale of losses it has suffered since October 2015.

Direction raises the level of Palestinian performance in confronting the occupation, which raises the level of the enemy’s losses and lowers the level of the people’s losses. We are all fully aware that the Authority’s goal is commitment to Zionist security, even at the expense of Palestinian security, and we advise it not to shed tears over us.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “المفاوضات الفلسطينية الصهيونية بالسر والعلن” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.