The Palestinian National Unity Government
The “international community” rejects democracy
The establishment of a National
Unity Government was ratified overwhelmingly by the Palestinian Legislative
Council on 17 March 2007 by 83 votes to 3 (2 from the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine and 1 independent).
Had it not been for the actions of
the Israeli occupier, the majority would have been over 120, rather than 80. Of the PLC’s 132 members, only 87 were able
to take part (see, for example, the International Herald Tribune on 17 March
2007 [1]). 41 of them, nearly a third of the total, are
in Israeli jails. Of them, 37 are from Hamas, including the parliamentary speaker, Aziz Dweik. The Hamas members
were arrested in the
Another 4 members were absent - some
sick, some wanted by
Because of Israeli travel restrictions, the PLC
couldn’t meet in a single venue - members had to assemble in two video-linked
locations in
These basic facts, which went unreported in
True, in a statement on 21 March
2007 [2],
the Quartet (the
So overcome with “respect” is the Quartet for “Palestinian democracy”
that, in the same statement, it demands that the Government abandon the
platform on which it was endorsed overwhelmingly by the “Palestinian democracy”
before the Quartet deems it to be a legitimate government. To quote:
“The Quartet reaffirmed its previous statements with regard to the need
for a Palestinian government committed to nonviolence, recognition of
One wonders what demands the Quartet would make of the National Unity
Government if it had no “respect” for “Palestinian democracy”.
Vote
of confidence
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas addressed the Palestinian
Legislative Council on 17 March
2007, prior to its endorsement of the National Unity Government. In his remarks, he read out the programme of the Government.
(You can find an English translation of the speech, including the programme, by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre
(JMCC) here [3]. An English translation by the Israeli
Government of the programme can be found here [4]
and a critique of the programme by the Israel
Government here [5]. Earlier versions of the programme
can be found on the JMCC website and elsewhere, but what Prime Minister Haniyeh read out to PLC prior to its endorsement of the
Government has to be taken to be the definitive version.)
In the Mecca Agreement, Hamas conceded little
or no political ground to Fatah, which neither
required its signatories to “recognise”
“Recognising”
There is no mention of “recognising”
Section 1 of the programme on political
questions begins [4]:
“The government asserts that security and stability in the region are
conditional upon the termination of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands
and on the recognition of the Palestinian people’s right to self determination.
The government will work with our Arab brothers and with the international
community to terminate the occupation and to return our people’s legitimate
rights, the first of which is the establishment of an independent Palestinian
state with full sovereignty over all the lands occupied in 1967 and with
The programme goes on to reject the notion of “a
state with temporary borders” as a first step to the goal of an independent
Palestinian state in “all the lands occupied in 1967”.
Nowhere in the above, or elsewhere in the programme,
is the establishment of such a state stated to be the final goal of the Government.
Right of return
What is more, the programme unequivocally
reasserts the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes,
expressing [4]:
“A reaffirmation of the right to return and adherence to it and a call
to the international community to carry out [UN General Assembly] Resolution
194 regarding the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to the lands and
property they left, and to receive compensation.”
Resolution 194 [6]
was passed on 11 December 1948. In
Paragraph 11, the UN General Assembly resolved that
“refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable
date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing
not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of
international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or
authorities responsible”
and instructed:
“the Conciliation Commission [set up by the Resolution] to facilitate
the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the
refugees and the payment of compensation …”
So, in this matter, the National Unity Government merely restates the demand
of the UN General Assembly in 1948.
(Of course, it can be said that the General Assembly may only “make
recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security
Council”, to quote from Article 10 of the UN Charter, and therefore Resolution
194 can be ignored. But if General
Assembly Resolution 194 is a mere recommendation that can be ignored, then so
is General Assembly Resolution 181 passed a year earlier on 29 November 1947 [7],
which proposed the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine - in about 50%
of the land area, in which nearly 50% of the population was Arab.)
60 years later no refugees expelled in 1947/48 have been allowed to
return to their homes, and none choosing not to return have been compensated
for loss of or damage to property. And
nor have refugees expelled in 1967 and on many other occasions over the
succeeding 60 years. Resolution 194 has
been ignored.
“The platform [of the National Unity Government] includes
adherence to the ‘right to return’ and calls for the implementation of UN
General Assembly Resolution 194 (December 1948) regarding the right of the
Palestinian refugees to return to their lands and property and to receive
reparations. The wording reflects Hamas’ position and
interpretation of Resolution 194 as the physical return of the refugees to
their lands, that is, the destruction of the State of Israel as a homeland for
the Jewish people.”
Which is an admission that, without the expulsion of
Arabs in 1947/8 and thereafter, it would have been impossible to establish and
maintain a viable Jewish state in
Generally speaking, the “international community” has remained silent about
the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
Since the Quartet is in favour of the
maintenance of a Jewish state in Palestine, and since a necessary condition for
the maintenance of such a state is that Palestinian refugees do not return in
large numbers to the territory of that state (wherever its boundaries are
fixed), if the Quartet were honest, it would specify a 4th condition
that a Palestinian Government must adhere to before being recognised
as legitimate, namely, that it must accept that Palestinian refugees will never
be permitted to return to the homes within Israel from which they were expelled
in 1947/48 and afterwards. That
condition is implicit in the Quartet’s position but it chooses not to lay it
down, since to do so would focus attention on how the refugees became refugees
in the first place.
But it is the publicly stated policy of the most important member of the
Quartet – the
“The
This public denial of the right of return for Palestinian refugees was a
reward in advance from the
US reneges on Resolution 242
But that wasn’t the only reward.
The letter also said:
“As part of a final peace settlement,
In other words, it is the publicly stated policy of the
“Withdrawal of
That means “a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949”,
so the
(The second principle is:
“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and
acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within
secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”)
On the question of “major Israeli
population centers” on the territories
“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
There isn’t the slightest doubt that, by creating and maintaining “major
Israeli population centers” in the occupied territories,
The
“[The Security Council] calls once
more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949
Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from
taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and
geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the
Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular,
not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;”
Neither the
Resisting occupation
The National Unity Government asserts unequivocally the right of
Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation by whatever means. Section 3 of its programme
(on occupation) begins [4]:
“The government asserts that all forms of ‘resistance’, including mass
popular resistance against the occupation, is the
Palestinian people’s legitimate right, ensured by all accepted international
conventions. It is our people’s right to defend themselves
against continued Israeli aggression.”
Not much doubt there that the Government is reserving the right to
engage in armed resistance to occupation.
Accepting past agreements by the PLO
On the question of accepting past agreements by the PLO, the programme is not clear.
Section 1.2 says [4]
that under certain conditions:
“… the government will honor the legitimate
international decisions and agreements signed by the PLO.”
The key PLO agreement with
“The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to
exist in peace and security.
“The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions
242 and 338.
“The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process,
and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares
that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved
through negotiations.
“… the PLO renounces the use of
terrorism and other acts of violence.”
These are the commitments that the Quartet requires the National Unity
Government to abide by today before it is deemed to be a legitimate
government. But, those are Fatah commitments and Fatah lost
the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006 to Hamas. If the
winning party in elections is required to stick to commitments made by the
loser, then there isn’t much point in holding elections.
One reason - perhaps the major reason - why Fatah
lost the elections was that agreeing to the
On negotiations with
Israel
The programme of the National Unity Government
authorises President Mahmoud
Abbas, as Chairman of the PLO, to negotiate with
“The government ratifies what was said in the national conciliation
[prisoners’] document, according to which conducting negotiations is within the
authority of the PLO and the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, based on
adherence to and realizing the national Palestinian goals, and based on the
defense of unshakable Palestinian rights and principles.”
However, his freedom of action in concluding any agreement is severely
restrained by the fact that:
“Any diplomatic agreement reached will be presented to the new
Palestinian National Council for ratification and signing, or a general
referendum will be held of the Palestinian people at home and abroad within the
framework of an appropriate law.”
The Palestinian National Council (PNC) is a body representing Palestinians
both in the occupied territories and abroad.
It includes the 132 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council
elected by Palestinians in the occupied territories. Following upon the Mecca Agreement, the PNC
is to be reconstituted and, as a result, Hamas
influence in the PNC will increase.
Government makeup
There are 25 ministers in the new government, including the Prime
Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. 12 of them
belong to, or are connected to, Hamas, 6 to Fatah, and 4 to the other groups with representatives
elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Most are not members of the Council.
Three senior posts are filled by independents:
(1) Foreign Minister Ziyad Abu Amro, who is a native
of
(2) Finance Minister Salam Fayyad, who first served in this post from 2002 when Yasser Arafat was President. An economist and a former World Bank official
who lived in the United States for twenty years, he was an official of the
World Bank from 1987-95 and later the IMF representative to Palestine until
2001, when he became Finance Minister.
He was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006 as
one of the 2 members of the
(3) Interior Minister Hani Talab al-Qawasmi , who was nominated
by Hamas.
International reaction
However, while they suffer the consequences, Palestinians can comfort
themselves that the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has now agreed to meet Mahmoud
Abbas once a fortnight. One of these days, there may even be an
outcome from one of these meetings.
For once, the
The Quartet (the
To its credit,
David Morrison
7 April 2007
Labour & Trade Union
Review
www.david-morrison.org.uk
References:
[1] www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/18/africa/web.0318mideast.php
[2] www.un.org/news/dh/infocus/middle_east/quartet-21mar2007.htm
[3] www.jmcc.org/politics/pna/haniehspeechmar07.htm
[4] See Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website www.mfa.gov.il
[5] See Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website www.mfa.gov.il
[6] See domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/vGARes
[7] See domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/vGARes
[8] www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040414-3.html
[9] See domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/vCouncilRes
[10] www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
[11] See domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/vCouncilRes
[12] See domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/vDateDoc
[13] See Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website www.mfa.gov.il