Uncertain PA future

That the future of the Palestinian Authority has recently been discussed by a number of Palestinian analysts in the West Bank is not that unusual. Speculation over the future of the Oslo-based administration in parts of the occupied West Bank has in fact been going on for years, mostly anticipating that since the Oslo process has failed to fulfil any of the promised outcomes, specifically for the Palestinians, its inevitable collapse was long overdue.

The undisputed reality, now widely accepted by all concerned parties — the Palestinians, Arab states, the so-called international community and the main peace process patrons — is that Oslo was counterproductive.

Even the Israelis recognise this reality, although it may not be in their interest to admit it.

For Israel, the process was not meant to accomplish any of its initially declared objectives; it was designed to legitimise the occupation and to facilitate the colonisation and eventually annexation of the entire land of Palestine.

As a result, not only has the Oslo framework failed to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it has also, over the past 20 years since its initiation, enabled the Israeli occupiers to create irreversible facts on the ground that render meaningless any talk about ending the occupation or allowing the rise of a Palestinian state to live side by side in peace with Israel under the two-state formula.

More than 700,000 Jewish settlers live now in illegal settlements, most established since Oslo on occupied Palestinian land in and around Jerusalem and all over the West Bank.

The land originally earmarked for the envisaged Palestinian state continues to shrink and the Israeli building plans of additional settlements continue despite meek protests from the so-called international community.

Even the areas that were supposed to be under full Palestinian Authority control under the Oslo arrangements are rarely treated any differently.

Israel continues to operate in such territories at will, with no regard for agreements.

For Israel, the main function of the PA is to administer on behalf of the occupier and to exercise authority only as permitted and measured by the occupier, but not to have any independent power or decision of its own.

The other PA function, the one that is much more critical and intensely controversial, is the security responsibility, again on behalf of the occupier, and the infamous security cooperation that mainly serves the occupier; it has also been facilitating the occupiers’ colonisation schemes.

Despite their full awareness of the sterility of the so-called peace process and of their full knowledge of Israel’s systematic and steady plans to confiscate their land and their rights, the Palestinians have been exceptionally patient and quite tolerant with their authority, with the international community and with the peace process main sponsor in Washington, hoping that a miracle may one day bring a breakthrough.

They did calmly wait until all peacemaking efforts and prolonged negotiations have been exhausted. They endured the worst and the most cruel occupation practices before they reached their own conclusions that the game is over.

Recent eruptions of individual Palestinian acts of violence against Israelis indicate that the occupied Palestinians have given up.

This took many by surprise, including the PA.

Counting on his people’s patience, their willingness to live in peace away from violence and additional suffering even if under humiliating occupation, the PA leader promised that he would stay the course of negotiations practically endlessly.

He also committed not to ever allow another uprising or any violence against the occupier: only peaceful protests, he kept affirming, although peaceful protests for any reason were often prohibited.

There is no question that the PA continues to serve convenient purposes for more than one party.

The international community wants the authority to maintain the status quo as long as possible, lest change may require international action concerned powers are not prepared for — are even unwilling — to confront.

The usefulness of the authority for Israel is clear. Israel does not want to face its occupation responsibilities directly as long as someone else is doing it on its behalf, particularly one in accordance with its own direction and with foreign financing.

Not only does that make the occupation trouble free and cost free, it is also profitable. 

However, the willingness of the PA, of its privileged bureaucracy, to maintain its convenience to the said parties remains stable.

All previous PA threats to hand the keys over to the Israeli government in protest at the Israeli excesses proved empty.

Equally unreal are Israel’s harsh accusations of the PA for inciting violence or resorting to international action at the ICC.

Israel takes great pleasure in routinely tightening the lid on the PA, but not to the point of making it collapse.

The current surge of violence, mostly by young Palestinian individuals, seems to be scrambling the cards. It puts the PA before a very delicate position, being unable to stop it, even if willing to do so, or to contradict its avowed “no third Intifada pledge”, by condoning the new, spontaneous, knife uprising.

The current knife attacks, though still in their early beginnings and quite sporadic, seem to be equally disturbing to the Israelis as ominous signs for what may turn serious.

Israel’s propaganda machine is trying to portray Palestinians’ actions as religiously motivated acts of fanatic radicalised Muslims against Jews, not as expressions of desperation and hopelessness after 48 years of continued occupation.

For those Palestinians who put their lives at clear risk when they attack heavily armed soldiers with kitchen knives or when they ram Israeli pedestrians with their cars — rarely any of the attackers so far has survived — it is not just an ordinary occupation.

The Palestinians know full well that Israel wants to completely eradicate them from their land. It is unlikely that they will wait for that wretched destiny peacefully.

This is the dilemma both the PA and Israel have to deal with.

All options, additional negotiations in particular, have been fully and totally consumed.

Israel is not going to change its ways in any manner that would make any measure of reconciliation possible, while the Israeli society is drifting fast towards extremist politics that deny all rights to Palestinians.

Any justification for the PA to continue under the present circumstances seems to be equally nil. Apparently, the inevitable end of years of deception, procrastination, false promises, patience and empty hopes is here, and the many decades-old game is over.