Back to Opinions Page

When Khaled Mishaal declared that there was no place for calm, that what prevailed was a political standstill and that Sharon had nothing to provide to Palestinians voluntarily, he enraged the advocates of settlement in Palestine and many other countries as if the calm was one of the cornerstones of the Palestinian agenda. Some of these elements even went as far as accusing such a declaration as treason against the national interest.

Surprisingly enough, Mr. Sa’eb Oraikat (the in-charge of PA's negotiations with Israel), in a statement to Palestine Radio, and prior to Mishaal’s declaration, stated that it was not possible for the Palestinian side to abide by the calm when Israel continued its military actions. However, not one sign of criticism was made about Oraikat’s statement although - in essence- it reflected the same meaning.

Isn’t that a dictatorship practiced by a particular political perspective?

Let’s frankly discuss the agendas of some parties vis-à-vis the calm policy:

The Palestinian Authority looks at the calm as:

• a grace time for rebuilding the authority's structures especially those of the security apparatuses with a view to amending the balance of power (to resume internal security missions).

• a time for creating a popular environment for launching the settlement process.

The resistance factions wished the calm to play the following roles:

• a time to rest as the struggle is long and needs endurance.

• a time to invest the “Cairo Declaration” in re-organizing the Palestinian political house and agenda.

Sharon wants the calm period to:

• stop the state of attrition that struck the Israeli economic and social life
• mend the security theory and regain respect to the security backbone represented by deterrence.

• try to subdue the Palestinian position in preparation to impose the unilateral settlement and cancel the partnership equation produced by Oslo agreement.

In light of this analysis, the Palestinian Authority’s perspective sadly looks close to that of Sharon’s whereas its declared address to the Palestinian public is charged with a highly patriotic tune and expressions voiced by the interior ministry’s spokesman “Abu Khousa”.

Such a dictatorial bilateral perspective blinds the political sight to the extent of reversing reality. Accordingly, the resistance rockets “destroy the Palestinian national rights” and arresting the freedom fighters in the wake of “Netanya” operation turns into a national mission that serves a rational national agenda.

While recognizing the right of those elements to perceive the truce in a way that serves their political position and agenda, it is only logical to simultaneously recognize the resistance elements’ right to perceive the truce the way they do.