The Fatah Charter: Intentions Vs. Words

by Arlene Kushner

On January 27, 2010, the Jewish Telegraph Agency put out a news story which indicated that a new Fatah charter, which had emerged from the Fatah Conference held in Bethlehem in August 2009, omitted a previous call for Israel’s destruction.

Wrote JTA: “US Jewish groups...have long called for Fatah...to renounce the negationist language of earlier charters. The calls have been repeated in a number of congressional resolutions...”

Omission of certain phraseology does not, however, necessarily signify the renuncia tion that Jewish groups have sought. The question is whether the omission in this instance has import: Does the fact that Fatah’s new charter no longer explicitly calls for the elimination of Israel represent a genuine moderating of its previous stance? The answer, succinctly, is no.

Not one of the Arabic-speaking experts on Fatah contacted for this article - including a journalist, head of a research institute and an academic - were aware of any evidence of Fatah moderation. Their positions provide not unim por tant back ground.

JTA did no direct research for its report. Instead, it drew directly upon material put out by Secrecy News, a well-respected, little-known agency of the Federation of American Scientists, dedicated to providing public access to documentary resources that are not classified. Secrecy News, in turn, drew upon information from the Open Source Center (OSC) of the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

OCS acquired the original Arabic charter via a link posted on the Fatah Forum web site. OCS then arranged for it to be translated into English and placed the transla tion on its website. It was not, however, accessible to the general public: OSC general policy is to restrict access to its material to government employ ees and contrac tors.

Steve Aftergood, who runs Secrecy News, obtained the document from a contact with access to the OSC. Thus, Aftergood was able to vouch for the source of the document. But he knew “nothing about the authenticity or validity of the Arabic original... or the quality of the OSC translation.”

The JTA release states forthrightly that “the new Fatah charter maintains a militant tone,” and indeed, when the charter is examined, that is found to be the case. “You must know that our enemy is strong and the battle is ferocious and long,” it declares in its introduction. It speaks, as well, of “revolution” and “liberation.”

But what is meant to be liberated by revolution?

The document’s true intention is found in the final statement of its introduction: “Long live Palestine, free and Arab.” This theme was echoed in a closing statement for the Fatah Conference made on August 13, 2009 by Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas. “Egypt is for Egyptians,” he declared, “Syria is for Syrians, Lebanon is for Lebanese, and Jordan is for Jordanians. Yet, Palestine is for the Palestinian people...”

Indeed? “Palestine,” in this context, refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It most clearly does not mean that Gaza and the West Bank is for Arabs, while what is inside the Green Line is for Jews. If all of Palestine is for Arabs, then the obvious intent is that, when the “revolution” was completed and “liberation” had been achieved, Israel would exist no more.

This take is confirmed by a closer look at the document itself. This charter, it says, drafted to attend to such organizational matters as defining the tasks of leaders and regulating the relationship between members, has “been adopted within the frame work of adherence to the provisions of the Basic Charter,” ratified in Tunis in 1989.

This is not a full revision, then, but an adjunct providing for certain bureaucratic and organizational matters. No need to be explicit about the elimination of Israel; all that is necessary is to acknowledge the primacy of the Basic Charter, which did call for Israel’s elimination.

This essential point seems to have been passed over by the JTA report. Bewilder ingly, it notes the terminology regarding adherence to the Basic Charter, and then goes on to say, “Nonetheless, missing entirely from the charter is the...language...in the 1989 version that implied Israel’s replacement...”

Nonetheless? But within the broader context, what is missing is not really of consequence. It certainly does not seem to merit the JTA headline: “New Fatah charter omits language on Israel’s demise.”

The Palestinians are particularly adept at presenting their positions so that they seem to be what we would wish them to be. Sometimes we allow ourselves to be taken in by this, so eager are we to find evidence of increasing Palestinian Arab moderation.

Yet the task that falls to us it to be certain that we are not deceived. In examining the new Fatah charter, we cannot legitimately find cause for optimism. This document provides no evidence of increasing Fatah moderation.

Arlene Kushner is the senior research analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem, and author of a daily blog, Arlene from Israel.

View the original article in the Arlene

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Palestinian Prime Minister Belies Moderate Image

Palestinian Prime Minister Belies Moderate Image

by David Bedein

Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayad's plan for a Palestinian State was received with adulation and praise at the United Nations this past week in New York. Indeed, throughout the month of August, 2009, Palestinian National Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayad met with more than fifty members of the US Senate and US House of Representatives and made a fine impression on each and every one of them, from both sides of the aisle.

In press conferences held by almost democratic and republican congress people after meeting the American educated Fayad, the consistent impression that they conveyed was that Mr. Fayad represented a "moderate voice of leadership" for a future Palestinian state that could live alongside the state of Israel.

A group of Israeli peace groups received and distributed the English version of a position paper for a future Palestinian state that Mr. Fayad submitted this week to the UN, The EU, The American government and the Russian government

However, Fayad's paper "Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State: Program of the Thirteenth Government - August 2009" would seem to belie Fayad's image as a "moderate voice of leadership" available on the net at HERE.

The preface to Fayad's paper introduces a Palestinian state that will strive for "peace, security and stability in our region on the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital".

Yet Fayad's 38 page position paper reads like a declaration of war, not of peace.

Fayad asserts that "Jerusalem" will be the Palestinian capital of the Palestinian state - not East Jerusalem.

In case anyone was wondering if Fayad had made a typographical error by not mentioning "east" Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, Fayad repeats - ten times - that he means Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem. Fayad leaves nothing to the imagination, and writes that the Palstininian stat will " Protect Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian state", because Fayad asserts that "Jerusalem is our people's religious, cultural, economic and political center. It is the Flower of Cities and Capital of Capitals. It cannot be anything but the eternal capital of the future Palestinian state. Jerusalem"

Fayad goes on to claim that Jerusalem "is under threat" and that " the occupying authority is implementing a systematic plan to alter the city's landmarks and its geographical and demographic character in order to forcibly create facts on the ground, ultimately separating it from its Palestinian surroundings and eradicating its Arab Palestinian heritage".

Fayad further claims that "Palestinian life in Jerusalem is under daily attack through systematic violations perpetrated by the occupation regime" and that "It is the right and the duty of all Palestinians to protect their land, reject the occupation and defy its measures", adding that the Palestinian state "bears special responsibility for nurturing our people's ability to persevere and protect their homeland".

Fayad ads that the Palstinian government will maintain its "unreserved commitment to defending the Arab character and status of Jerusalem.... The Government will continue to do all that is possible to achieve this goal. The Government will work with all organizations to preserve the landmarks of Jerusalem and its Arab Palestinian heritage, develop the city, and secure its contiguity with its Palestinian surroundings".

Fayad frames Jerusalem as an illegal settlement, postulating that "the occupying authority is pursuing its intensive settlement policy in and around Jerusalem...The occupation regime has shut down our national institutions, neglected the development of Palestinian life, continued to demolish and evacuate Palestinian homes, and restricted access to sacred Christian and Islamic sites"

Fayad goes so far as to present a practical plan to Arabize Jerusalem:

Maintaining Jerusalem as a top priority on the Government's agenda and·" highlighting its predicament in the media. Launching a programs to promote the steadfastness of Jerusalemites, including: Strengthen Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem, providing financial support to help them deliver services to citizens".

Fayad reassures his readers that a future Palestinian state would not be satisfied with Jerusalem, the west bank and Gaza as the national home for Palestinians, and says that the Palestinian government will continue to advocate for "Palestinian refugees in accordance with relevant international resolutions, and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in particular", which mandates that Palestinian refugees and their descendents have a right to return to the homes and villages that Palestinians left during the 1948 war and its aftermath.

Fayad reminds Palestinians that "the refugee issue will remain under the jurisdiction of the PLO, through its Department of Refugees' Affairs...in a manner that does not exempt the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from its responsibilities"

In the view of Fayad, UNRWA will therefore continue to confine Palestinian refugees a their descendents to the indignity of refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return".

Meanwhile, Fayad expresses full support for Palestinians who have been convicted of murder and attempted murder, saying that "the state also has an enduring obligation to care and provide for the martyrs, prisoners, orphans and all those harmed in the Palestinian struggle for independence".

Fayad simply cannot understand why Palestinians convicted of capital crimes should be jailed.

Fayad proclaims that "the continued detention of thousands of Palestinian detainees and prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention camps in violation of international law and basic human rights, is of great concern to all Palestinians" and declares that "Securing the freedom of all these heroic prisoners is an utmost Palestinian priority and it is a fundamental duty all Palestinians feel to honor their great sacrifices and end their suffering" and demands the "freedom of all Palestinian detainees and prisoners and will continue to strive to secure their liberty".

Fayad also asserts that the PLO and have signed "all provisions of agreements signed with Israel", yet forgets to mention that the PLO never ratified the signed agreements with Israel.

On October 6, 1993, PLO chairman Arafat could not get a quorum for the PLO executive to ratify the Oslo accords that Arafat had signed with Rabin on the White House lawn.

On April 24, 1996, the Palestinian National Council would not cancel the PLO covenant and has never ratified the PLO covenant, despite the PLO commitment to do so as an integral part of the Oslo accord. The PLO Covenant has yet to be cancelled.

Fayad's view of justice is well articulated in this piece when he states that "All Palestinians are equal before the law".

Anyone who is not a Palestinian is therefore not equal

Fayad declares that the Palestinian State will be an Islamic state and "Promote awareness and understanding of the Islamic religion and culture and disseminate the concept of tolerance in the religion through developing and implementing programs of Shari'a education as derived from the science of the Holy Qur'an and Prophet's heritage".

In sum, Fayad concludes with a demand for a Palestinian state in the next two years, along the parameters that he has outlined, with an Palestinian state that will have all of Jerusalem as its capital, in an Islamic Sharia state that will campaign for all convicts to be freed, for all refugees to return to the homes and villages that they left in 1948.

A voice of moderation?

It would be interesting to know if the peace groups that distributed Fayad's working paper ever bothered to read it.

View the Original Link: Palestinian Prime Minister Belies Moderate Image

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Denigration of Israel in the Public Domain: Yom Kippur and the American Jewish Media

The principle of Freedom of the Press assures every media outlet the right to publish freely in the public domain. Yet on Yom Kippur, we couch that freedom with a restraint on "Hotzaat Shem HaRa" - denigration in the public domain

In 2008, Tikkun magazine, a fellow member of the American Jewish Press Association, won the American Jewish Press Association ‘s Simon Rockower Award for “Excellence in Special Sections or Supplements” for its “Israel at 60” issue.

Yom Kippur provides an opportunity for AJPA to reconsider such an award to a special issue of a magazine which was dedicated to promoting "Hotzaat Shem HaRa" and the denigration of Israel.

That issue contains vile diatribes against Israel as a human-rights-violating oppressor of the Palestinian people, a “shanda fur de goyim” (a disgrace among the nations), and an idolatrous worshipper of power instead of trust in YHVH (the God of healing and transformation, the God that calls for a world based on love and generosity and promises to throw the Jews out of their land if they do not embody this different and very anti-”realistic” perspective that is the whole point of being Jewish).” In that issue, Tikkun editor Michael Lerner described the founding of Israel by writing that “...Jews were determined to be as ruthless towards others as others had been towards us. Yet, there were alternatives. We could have remained a minority in an Arab country and hoped for the goodness of the Arab people to prevail...We could have reached out...to a growing Palestinian nationalist movement and tried to create a bi-national state. We could have rejected20the Histadrut's "Jewish only" policy of membership...” Lerner added that “starting in the 1980s, it was the Jews who rejected reasonable offers for peace...” and that “the kind of Zionism that has emerged in Israel is fundamentally incompatible with the highest values of the Jewish tradition, and must be rejected...”

This is reminiscent of an interview with Dr. Mubarak Awad, head of a Palestinian “Center for the Study of Non-Violence” which Tikkun magazine commissioned our agency to conduct, on January 8, 1988.

Dr. Awad, whose office was decorated with pictures of Dr, Martin Luther King and Dr Mahatma Ghandi, said in the taped interview for Tikkun that he favored a coalition of violent and nonviolent organizations that would advocate the Palestinian cause. When Dr Awad was asked how his approach differed from the pure approach of non-violence advocated by King and Ghandi, Awad responded that he was "more pragmatic than they were." However, Tikkun Michael Lerner deleted these questions in the March 1988 published interview, explaining later that "this is not the Awad we know.”

In terms of current Tikkun Denigration activities, the Tikkun invitation to Alice Walker to speak for them on Yom Kippur speaks for itself.

Walker remains one of those who refer to Israel’s war with Gaza in terms of Israel’s “war crimes”.

It will be most instructive to observe the reaction of the American Jewish Press Association to Lerner’s latest act of denigration of Israel in the public domain.

The second Yom Kippur matter with AJPA concerns allegations of a former president of the American Jewish Press Association, Marc Klein, who engaged in a serious Hotzaat Shem HaRa against my work.

During this past year, I requested news interviews with J Street through J St9 9s representative - Steve Rabinowitz of Rabinowitz Dorf - asking for the opportunity to raise journalistic questions of the organizers of J Street concerning J Street's continued description of the PLO/Fatah/Abbas/The PA as a “moderate” entity..

However, Rabinowitz refused to allow me to ask questions to J Street organizers.

Incredibly, Marc Klein supported the idea that Rabinowitz would not have to answer questions from a journalist.

Klein justified the idea by attacking me as a right wing ideologue who is not really a journalist.

In other words, AJPA defines Michael Lerner as a journalist, but not David Bedein.

It is doubtful whether Klein bothered to peruse 909 bylined articles in the Philadelphia Bulletin , 2006-2009, which have been published over the past three years to see for himself whether the title “journalist” was appropriate or not..

With the advent of Yom Kippur, it would behoove Klein to express regret for engaging in Hotzaat Shem HaRa against me, and to admit that he while he may not like my questions, that he does recognize me as a colleague and professional journalist.

I have worked diligently in the world of journalism since launching a news agency at Beit Agron on Dec.1, 1987, a web magazine on Feb 1 1997 and assuming the chairmanship of an academic research center on August 1, 2005.

During these 22 years, I have applied my MSW and social work ethics to my work, and to stick to the facts, no matter whose toes are stepped on.

As a student of Saul Alinsky, whom I learned with at the Free University in Madison forty years ago, the principle of focusing on moral principles while carrying out a professional role remains of primary concern.

Contrary to how Klein has stereotyped my work, the passion of my background is in the peace movement, both in the United States and in Israel. From 1970 to the present, I was involved in Jewish-Arab dialogue groups, with organizations that advocate the protection of Jewish and Arab civil liberties, and with groups that seek a solution to the continuing indignity of Arab refugee camps.

When the PLO betrayed the principles pf the peace movement, the responsible thing do was to blow the whistle on the PLO, unlike many colleagues from the peace movement and from the world of social work who prefer to look the other way and to give the benefit of the doubt to the PLO, which continues to endorse the liberation of all of Palestine - albeit in stages - and the return of refugees and their descendants to homes from 1948 which no longer exist..

Israel Resource works on issues that most reporters prefer to ignore: the PLO suppression of civil liberties and human rights, the PLO persecution of Christians, the PLO media celebrations of those who murder Jews, the new PLO textbooks which inculcate the idea that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. (http://tinyurl.com/ydgfzna)

Israel Resource made enemies in the Jewish media by exposing Arafat before others did so, by hiring Palestinian journalists to record Arafat’s message in Arabic to his own people, while most of the media ignored Arafat’s clear message in Arabic.

Our Palestinian TV crew was the only TV media outlet that covered the Palestinian National Council meeting in April 1996 which would not change the PLO covenant to destroy Israel, which contradicted the lie promulgated at the time that the PLO had changed its covenant. (http://tinyurl.com/ydvrhof)

Today, it is understood that Arafat was not a man of peace.

However, that was not always the case.

Our agency that exposed the fact that the UJC, in October 1999, intended to bestow the Isaiah Award for Peace on Yassir Arafat, Steve Rosenberg, then the editor of the Jewish Advocate in Boston, checked our story and received confirmation from the UJC and from Arafat’s office that the UJC indeed planned to grant the Isaiah Award for Peace to Arafat.

Thanks to that revelation, the UJC was forced to cancel that honor to the terror chieftan.

UJC never thanked our agency for saving them from that disgrace.

Imagine if Arafat’s obituary five years later would have mentioned an honor granted to Arafat by the American Jewish establishment?.

Instead, the UJC hired Kroll Associates to investigate the sources of our story, and issued memos to Jewish Federations to beware of our agency.

Yes, there is a price to be paid for being ahead of your time.

Today, with Yom Kippur on the horizon, the American Jewish media copes with paid professionals associated with the New Israel Fund, the Americans for Peace Now and Rabinowitz Dorf/J Street, all of whom are members in good standing of the American Jewish Press Association, all of whom promote the idea that the PLO/Fatah wants peace, along with the notion that Jewish communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines stand n the way of peace. They promote the idea that anyone who reports the PLO’s Arabic language message should be dismissed as “right wing” and not be listened to.

Arafat’s protégé, Abbas, in negotiation with Hamas to run a joint dictatorship over the Palestinian people, remains in control.

While Abbas's voice is softer than Arafat. his message remains the same.

Jewish media who cover suppression of Palestinian human rights could easily focus on Palestinian refugees and their descendants who are confined by the UN to the squalor of UNRWA refugee camps, funded by the Western nations, under the premise and promise of the right of return to villages from 1948 that no longer exist.

However, such concerns do not fit the agenda of those who denegrate the state Israel and such concerns do not fit the agenda of those who hold Israel responsible for confining Palestinian Arabs to refugee camps for an entire generation.

Yom Kippur is designed to bring about an inner change which will produce new ways of thinking and considering the challenges of life.

That should apply to the Jewish media and its coverage of the PLO.

Our agency asks, once again, that the June 2010 annual meeting of the American Jewish Press Association conduct a session on the Arabic language message of the PLO and its Palestinian Authority to their own people. If the PLO will convey a message of peace and reconciliation in the Arabic language by then, that will be discussed. Indeed, The Obama Administration is now addressing itself to the issue of virulent Palestinian incitement, unlike the Clinton and Bush administrations which ignored the issue.

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Palestinian Authority TV Celebrates Major Terror Attack

Palestinian Authority TV Celebrates Major Terror Attack

by David Bedein

On March 12, and again yesterday, the official Palestinian Authority (PA) television, known as the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), which operates under the direct supervision of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, and uses Israeli government frequencies, ran a television program celebrating a major Palestinian terror attack that occurred 31 years ago.

On March 11, 1978, Palestinian terrorists landed on an isolated beach located near Caesarea, where they murdered American nature photographer Gail Rubin, a cousin of the late U.S. Sen. Abraham Ribicoff, D-Conn. The terrorists proceeded to hijack a bus and murder 37 Israeli passengers aboard the vehicle.

This weekend, the Palestinian Authority celebrated this terror attack with an hour-long TV special, which included Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) training camps, while featuring interviews with Palestinian terrorists who described the planning and implementation of the killings.

According to an excerpt of the program that was translated by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), the narrator described the attack as “... one of the most important and most prominent special actions, executed by the Palestinian revolution by sea, on the coast between Haifa and Tel Aviv.

“This action, which was carried out by a group of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi, had a great impact on continuing events of the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

The spokespeople of the outgoing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who has often described the Fatah and the PA as “moderates,” were asked if they would issue a specific condemnation of the broadcast. No response was forthcoming.

Whenever this level of incitement has emanated from the PA, the standard response of Mr. Olmert’s spokespeople has been to “always ask the Palestinians to stop their incitement.”

However, during the three years of Mr. Olmert’s tenure, his spokespeople will not provide any record of his administration’s having issued a specific reprimand to the PA for their use of their official media organs to endorse terrorist attacks.

David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us

Special Report: Ongoing Evidence of Fatah Immoderation (The Center for Near East Policy Research)

Ongoing Evidence of Fatah Immoderation

by Arlene Kushner

The Center for Near East Policy Research has done a series of reports monitoring the
failure of Fatah, the controlling party of the Palestinian Authority, and PA president Mahmoud Abbas to demonstrate genuine moderation.

This issue has assumed particular relevance since Annapolis and the beginning of what is presumed to be negotiations with Israel for a peace agreement. The most recent update was published in May 2008. This paper documents notable instances of lack of Fatah moderation – and failure of good faith as a negotiating partner – since that update was completed.

See the full report: Ongoing Evidence of Fatah Immoderation

Special Report: May 2008 - Fatah as “Moderate” A Hard Look Post-Annapolis UPDATE (The Center for Near East Policy Research)

Fatah as “Moderate” A Hard Look Post-Annapolis

Executive Summary
This comes four months after the release of the primary report: “Fatah as ‘Moderate’” – seen at http://israelbehindthenews.com/pdf/ModerateFatah.pdf.

The fully documented update that follows this summary examines a marked pattern of
incidents – statements and actions by key members of Fatah or by the organs of Fatah – that work against genuine moderation. This situation has enormous import in light of the peace negotiations between Israel and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority that are based on the premise of Fatah moderation.

OVERVIEW: Increased Radicalism & Deterioration
Political discourse within Fatah (which controls the Palestinian Authority) has been
radicalized: more openly embracing terrorism and rejecting negotiation, and moving
towards an Islamic stance.

Fatah is now much closer to Hamas than was the case previously, as nationalism is now
entwined with Islam: nationalist rhetoric is succumbing to the notion of a religious war with a “Zionist-Crusader West.”

Internal Fatah politics are also increasingly unstable: Obstructionist elements are in ascendancy.

Influential members of the Fatah Central Committee who are hard line make it impossible for Abbas to advance a reasonable proposal for peace.

THE EVIDENCE
Praise of and Support for Terrorism
Considerable evidence exists for PA glorification of terrorism – often couched as
“armed struggle.”

Abbas Interview
Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, has given an interview that
connects him directly with terrorism.

Praise of Terrorists and Their Actions
The PA officially praises terrorists who are responsible for horrendous terrorist acts: We see this with the infamous terrorist Imad Mughniyeh, referred to as “extraordinary hero... a beacon of light.” With the terrorist who massacred eight students at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem, referred to as a Shahid - holy Islamic martyr, and approved by a Fatah leader who says Fatah conducts itself similarly. And others.

Incitement
Evidence of incitement exists at the highest levels of the PA.

Multiple charges by Abbas
On at least three occasions during March 2008, Mahmoud Abbas, PA president, made
inciteful statements, either to the press or in talks within Arabic conferences. He spoke of “an ethnic cleansing” in Jerusalem, and of a ‘barbaric holocaust” in Gaza.

“Right of Return” Plan
Also in March 2008, a PA Deputy Minister advanced an initiative for all Palestinians
living abroad to converge upon Israel for Israeli Independence Day.
Blanket Criticism of Israeli Military Operations
When wanted terrorists responsible for murder of Israelis were killed by Israeli forces, the PA referred to this as a “barbaric crime…executions against our people.”
With regard to violence between Palestinians (no matter their affiliation or terrorist deeds) and Israel, the PA defends the Palestinians, who are brothers, and not Israel.

Terrorist Acts
Repeatedly, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, a military arm of Fatah, claims full or partial
credit for terrorist acts or attempted acts: These include a planned terror by poison in a restaurant; an attempted knifing; a number of rocket launchings; and two shootings each of which killed two Israelis.

Adherence to the “Phased Program”

The PLO’s “Phased Program” has the final goal of acquisition all the land, but achieved one “liberation step” at a time. It calls for giving an impression of moderation, with diplomatic processes. Each step is expected to weaken Israel. “Armed resistance” – terrorism – is to be utilized when it can be useful.

In an April 2008 TV interview, the Fatah-affiliated PA representative in Lebanon made it clear that the PLO still adheres to this policy.

Connection to Iran
Israeli Intelligence has information that Iran provides money to several Fatah groups.

Ongoing Hamas Connection
The Western world is providing an enormous amount of assistance to Fatah, broadly
based on the premise that it is a moderate entity serving as a foil to the radical Hamas, and not significantly associated with it.
But in actuality Abbas does a dance between two poles. He cannot totally avoid contact with Hamas – for he is struggling with the power and influence of Hamas, the ethos of Palestinian brotherhood, and the weakness of Fatah.
In March there were preliminary negotiations between Hamas and Fatah towards a
renewed unity government, but this fell apart immediately.
When Fatah and Hamas join forces, Fatah does not moderate Hamas, Hamas radicalizes Fatah.

Abbas has indicated he has stipulations for dealing with Hamas. But at no time has he
insisted that – because he is now negotiating peace with Israel – he can only form a
government with a party that recognizes Israel’s right to exist and is prepared to
negotiate a two-state solution.
Abbas's bottom line is simply the return of Gaza, which was wrested from Fatah in a
coup almost a year ago.

See the Full Report: Fatah as “Moderate” A Hard Look Post-Annapolis

Special Report: March 2007 - Addendum to the Myth of a “Moderate” Fatah (The Center for Near East Policy Research)

This is an appendix to the original Center for Near Easy Policy Research Report: Inside Fatah - A “Moderate” Entity?

New Developments

The Fatah-Hamas Accord at Mecca

On February 8, 2007, Fatah and Hamas leaders, meeting in Mecca under the sponsorship
of Saudi Arabia, reached agreement on the formation of a PA unity government.
The Accord they produced, roughly based upon the Prisoners Document, was couched in
general terms and did not bridge all gaps in the positions between Fatah and Hamas.
What it did was establish certain broad principles and obligate the two sides to attempt to create a stable regime.

While a unity government has not yet been established as this is written – and continuing Fatah-Hamas friction casts some doubt on the likelihood that it will be – the Accord must be examined for what it reveals about the intentions and commitments of Fatah and PA president Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas has stated that the agreement was concerned only with an internal Palestinian
matter – prevention of a Palestinian civil war – and was not intended to address relations with Israel. In the words of Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi,1 the Accord is a “tactical political measure calculated to create a false impression regarding Hamas' political flexibility in order to whitewash the organization into being accepted as a legitimate player in the international arena...”

Since his return from Mecca, Abbas has been promoting the position that he can negotiate with Israel as the head of the PLO, rather than as president of the PA.3 The implication, on first blush, appears to be one of trying to achieve negotiations by circumventing the unity government, which will not have recognized Israel nor agreed to abide by previous agreements.

View the Full Report: March 2007 Addendum to Myth of a “Moderate” Fatah

Special Report: Inside Fatah - A “Moderate” Entity? (The Center for Near East Policy Research)

Can “strengthening” Mahmoud Abbas and his party improve the situation in the Middle East?

by Arlene Kushner

There is a prevailing notion in Western diplomatic circles today that Hamas – and
only Hamas – is the stumbling block to a successful negotiation of peace between
Israel and the Palestinian Authority. According to this thinking, Fatah – and
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in particular – are essentially
“moderate” in outlook and should be strengthened in the interests of achieving that
peace.

The question remains: Can this approach be substantiated? Is the Fatah indeed
“moderate”? Would it sustain a genuine peace with Israel?

Statements offered to a Western world eager to embrace peace are easy to proclaim.
These statements represent a major difference in policy between Fatah and Hamas:

While Hamas is boldly belligerent and declares its intentions outright, Fatah appears
to play the game. But this difference is one of style and not of ultimate intentions.
A review of salient facts dispels the notion that Fatah is “moderate.”
The argument has been made that it was the influence of Arafat that caused Fatah to
lack moderation, and that we are seeing a “new” Fatah since Arafat’s death. There is
scant evidence to support this.

In the battle currently ensuing between Fatah and Hamas, is it reasonable – on the
face of the evidence – to support and bolster Fatah with the expectation that it would genuinely pursue peace? The inescapable conclusion is that this is not a reasonable expectation.

We begin by looking at the Fatah of today, for this is of immediate concern.
We then turn to a broader look at Fatah, and a consideration of the years leading up to the present. No accurate understanding of Fatah would be possible without this
perspective. What we find is that, while style may have changed, the essence of Fatah
goals and policies have not.

See the Full Report: Inside Fatah - A “Moderate” Entity?