Doaa El-Bey looks at the outcome of Egypt's parliamentary elections and that of the Palestinian negotiations with Israel The US, having stated that it would not press Israel to halt its settlement building, has left the Palestinians with a difficult option: either enter into negotiations with no preconditions or guarantees or reject the talks altogether. Writers looked into other options before the Palestinian Authority. The editorial of the London-based independent political daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi said the US administration sometimes issues statements that are vague especially when it has to do with the Middle East or the Palestinian issue. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it added, stated a few days ago that a Palestinian state would be established next August but she did not mention how that will be done now that her administration has admitted being incapable of persuading Israel to freeze settlement building except for only three months. The same is true regarding the US Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell's visit to the occupied territories this week and his attempts to restart indirect negotiations. Mitchell, the edit elaborated, resorted to indirect negotiations in the hope of achieving progress that would persuade the Palestinians to start direct negotiations. But what's the use of returning to indirect negotiations anew, the edit asked. "All the parties are lying to buy time and to keep the Palestinians in the illusion they have been living in for the past 20 years, ever since they entered the Oslo negotiations," the edit stated. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is looking for options -- infusing peaceful resistance or dissolving the PA and taking the issue back to square one. The edit called on Abbas to stop talking about options and act on just one and soon in order to restore the world's attention to the Palestinian issue and hold Israel responsible for the failure of the peace process. Abbas should stop being hesitant and give the green light to the Palestinians to launch demonstrations against the US and Israel in order to bring the Palestinian issue back to the centre of interest of the world and the media, the edit concluded. Maamoun Kiwan wrote that Abbas announced the possibility of dissolving the PA as one option before the Palestinians. These options include referring the case to the Security Council or Arab states, or resorting to armed resistance or a new Intifada. However, Kiwan added that dissolving the PA did not seem to be the best option. The present political situation showed that Abbas has clung to his position as the president of the authority although his term in office ended a long time ago. Additionally, such a step constitutes a political bargain, a rash step and perhaps political suicide because the US has the ability to stop its financial support of the authority and that would mean complete structural deterioration and a possible substitution of the present authority. Kiwan highlighted forming a government in exile as another option that could be more suitable for Abbas. It was an old option suggested by former Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat. However, the writer added, it could be rejected by President Hosni Mubarak due to the different political situations and because of the presence of two Palestinian governments and the absence of a defined strategy for the Palestinian negotiator. "We are before a tragic scene involving the Palestinian negotiator represented by the president of the authority who has waited for the US Godot. This is a no-solution labyrinth for those searching for a place under the sun," Kiwan wrote in the London-based independent political daily Al-Hayat. Hani Al-Masri said the options before the Palestinians would most probably not be useful. Resorting to the US to recognise the Palestinian state, he explained, will not work because the US has always contributed to thwarting the peace process through its continuous support for Israel while declining to put any pressure on Tel Aviv. Likewise, resorting to the Security Council is important but futile since the US veto could stop issuing any resolution that recognises a Palestinian state. And anyway, the Security Council has issued dozens of resolutions acknowledging the rights of the Palestinians but Israel has never implemented any one of them. As for dissolving the PA, nobody has taken this option seriously because the authority would never dissolve itself. Even if somebody from inside the authority thought of dissolving it, he would face strong resistance from inside and outside. The practical option, Al-Masri wrote, starts with boosting the Palestinian resistance, reviving the role of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and calling for the right of return, self-determination and the establishment of a Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders. That option should give priority to Palestinian reconciliation, organising a comprehensive and fruitful resistance and restoring an Arab and international role in resolving the Palestinian issue. "The Palestinians are faced with direct negotiations without any preconditions. The negotiations are likely to produce a long-term framework agreement which would postpone resolving issues like Jerusalem, borders, refugees and settlements until later or probably forever. Or they decline and insist on drawing the basics that guarantee a fruitful negotiation, and that will only be achieved via changing the present situation which will only produce a temporary state. Will the Palestinians accept such a state or change the present situation?" Al-Masri asked in the independent Palestinian political daily Al-Ayyam. Belal Al-Hassan did not agree with those who said the US stopped demanding that Tel Aviv temporarily stop settlement building. He preferred to state that the US administration decided to fully adopt the Israeli plan especially that of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu regarding a political settlement with the Palestinians. The core of Netanyahu's plan, to which the US and some Arab states subscribe, is to negotiate in order to reach an agreement of principles or a framework agreement on the Palestinian issue to be implemented within 10 years. Thus, Al-Hassan added, Israel, the US and some Arab states agree on a temporary solution or a framework agreement that returns one-third of the West Bank to a temporary Palestinian state and away from the annexation wall that has already usurped another third of the West Bank. The question Al-Hassan asked in the London-based political daily Asharq Al-Awsat is what will Abbas do -- accept or reject the option? The question is difficult and the answer is more difficult because it is related to the Palestinian issue, rights, history and the destiny of 10 million people.
