Cairo managed to bring 12 Palestinian factions to the table for the first time in 20 years. But, reports Amira Howeidy, the results may not have been exactly what the hosts had in mind Twelve delegations from factions spanning the entire Palestinian political and military spectrum had all come to town, making the Egyptian capital the proud host of a "historic" meeting -- "the first in 20 years" in the words of Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman. The 'Cairo talks' took place for four days, from Friday 24 January to late on Monday 27 January, and were shrouded in secrecy. But while the venue remained unknown to anyone but the hosts and participants, it was clear, from both leaks and statements by some of the participants, that Egypt meant to convince the factions to accept a unilateral cease-fire proposal. Or, as President Hosni Mubarak said on Monday, Egypt did not want the Palestinians to stop the resistance, but to observe a "truce" in order to expose Israel. But no cease-fire or truce agreement was reached. Actually, there was no agreement on anything save the "need" to "pursue" the "dialogue" and establish a "unified leadership" for the Palestinian people. The participants were supposed to issue a communiqué on Monday evening, but disagreement over several key issues -- mainly between both Hamas and Jihad on one hand and Fatah on the other -- thwarted the endeavour. The points of contention -- whether or not the PLO was the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, whether or not to declare a unilateral cease-fire, and how to define the borders of a future Palestinian state -- came as no surprise. The factions will meet again on 4 February. Hamas' delegation was headed by its politburo chief in exile, Khaled Meshaal, while Fatah's was headed by the PLO's second man, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazin). The Egyptian 'side' was represented by Suleiman. Although the initial reaction to the Palestinians not releasing a statement or showing any overt signs of declaring a truce may have resulted in the talks being assessed as a failure, participants in the intensive four-day meeting interviewed by Al-Ahram Weekly offered a different view. "The issues were so complex and diverse that it was difficult to resolve everything," said Fahd Salman, who represented the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). "We didn't issue a statement simply because the dialogue wasn't finished. But the general atmosphere is promising for future talks." The main "themes" being discussed at the meetings, according to Salman, were Palestinian unity and the "methods of struggle" -- the latter being the political euphemism for cease-fire used at the meeting. Salman said the "positive" outcome of the talks had to do with the factions moving in the direction of establishing the aspired unity. Those who are not members of the PLO, Salman said, showed willingness to work towards becoming a part of the organisation. At the same time, Salman said, "they had important observations to make, noting things like the absence of democracy" inside the PLO. Both Hamas and Jihad, the main Islamic resistance groups responsible for most operations against Israel, including suicide bombings, are not members of the PLO. Hamas and Jihad, along with Fatah, have been involved in bilateral talks with Cairo since last November, in preparation for last week's larger meeting. These initial negotiations, according to unnamed sources quoted by the media, resulted in an 'Egyptian paper' presented by Suleiman proposing the truce. Hamas and Jihad had showed a willingness to observe a truce only if there were guarantees that Israel would reciprocate. Suleiman had met with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on this matter, but had received no promises. "Our position has always been very clear regarding the [proposed] truce," Jihad delegation head, Ziyad El-Nakhala told the Weekly, "but not all of what was said and what happened at the meeting can be made public." The meeting reportedly discussed three forms of cease-fire; stopping operations inside the 1948 borders of Israel known as the Green Line; not targeting civilians; and calling a unilateral truce lasting between three months and a year. According to El-Nakhala, however, "whatever is being said about truces can only be attributed to parties that have no influence on the ground. The truth of the matter is that the more effective factions stated their position, which was a continuation of the resistance." Asked for Jihad's evaluation of the three forms of cease-fire, El-Nakhala said, "wait and see what's to happen on the ground." The Jihad leader said that "at this stage, no one can call the Cairo talks completely positive or completely negative... The fact that the meeting was held and views were expressed with transparency is a Palestinian achievement." Reports that termed the meeting a failure mainly cited Hamas and Jihad taking issue with the proposed final communiqué that was to be signed Monday night. The communiqué reportedly said that the PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people -- terminology that was not accepted by either Hamas or Jihad. The two groups also refused to stop conducting operations inside the Green Line, since no guarantees had been forthcoming from the Israeli side. They also refused the communiqué's wording regarding a 'future Palestinian state on the 1967 borders', suggesting 'the occupied Palestinian territories" instead of 'the 1967 borders'. Both groups also took issue with the term "respecting" the right of return. Hamas Spokesman Osama Hamdan described much of the "leaked" information as "inaccurate", its aim to "distort" the dialogue. But while he did confirm his group's refusal to join the PLO "because of a number of difficulties", Hamdan also said there was a consensus about the need for "a unified political decision for the Palestinian people represented by its larger leadership". The meeting might not have "failed" in the eyes of its participants, but the truce initiative that was proposed has been called off for now. Does this mean Cairo failed to achieve its goals? "The dialogue," said Hamdan, "was between the Palestinian factions and not with the Egyptians. Egypt may have played host, creating the environment we needed to talk and develop a vision, but Cairo was not part of the dialogue."
