Palestinian national reconciliation talks fail amid charges of political arrests and attempts to impose a fait accompli on those supposedly in dialogue, writes Saleh Al-Naami Riding his horse, Abu Shihab, 54, is crossing Gaza from one end to the other wearing the Palestinian flag and the insignia of the main Palestinian factions. During his ride, he requests everyone he meets to sign a petition demanding all factions accelerate dialogue aimed to end unprecedented Palestinian divisions. Factional leaders claim to speak in the name of the people. Thus, Abu Shihab asks, if the public requests an end to current divisions, why would not they fulfil this desire? Abu Shihab informed Al-Ahram Weekly that he is one of many activists working within a Palestinian community group. He is in charge of managing a public campaign aimed at pressuring factions to dialogue. In this context, he collects petition signatures and motivates people to join a sit-in tent erected in "Unknown Soldier" Square in central Gaza, protesting against the behaviour of the factions and their failure to rise to the challenges facing the Palestinian people. Opportunities to initiate dialogue are diminishing, especially after Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the official Palestinian leadership and the Saeqah Organisation all refused to respond to the Egyptian call to attend dialogue sessions slated to begin last Sunday. To accept the invitation, the factions requested as a condition that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas release all political detainees in the authority's West Bank prisons, especially those affiliated to Hamas, Fatah, the Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Liberation Party. Senior advisor to dismissed Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, Ahmed Youssef, says that security organs working under Abbas intensified arrest operations, capturing hundreds of Hamas leaders and rank and file in the West Bank. "We became assured that the objective of such arrests is to blackmail and push Hamas into accepting a second term of Abbas as head of the Palestinian Authority." In this context, Youssef states, "it is hard to believe that the Egyptian government is incapable of putting enough pressure on Abbas to force him to release the political detainees, responding to the Haniyeh government's step of releasing all political detainees." Hamas and Islamic Jihad requested the release of political detainees as a condition for attending dialogue sessions. Prominent Islamic Jihad leader Khaled Al-Batsh demanded that political detentions end in order to provide an enabling situation to resume dialogue among the Palestinian factions. Al-Batsh further disapproved President Abbas's denials that political detentions are occurring. Al-Batsh also warned that arresting resistance members based on arms possession in the West Bank is an attempt to abolish the legitimacy of resistance. He also deplored that some security forces under Abbas took Israeli TV correspondents with them during arrests and break-ins targeting activists of the Palestinian factions. This, Al-Batsh said, could only be taken as an attempt to demonstrate to the occupation Abbas's useful role in fighting resistance. According to Nagi Sharab, professor of political science at Al-Azhar University in Gaza, the main problem obstructing dialogue is a lack of trust on all sides. He notes that while dialogue preparations were ongoing, verbal war and incitement in the media continued unabated. "The problem lies in the wrong interpretations of international changes by some Palestinian parties. They believed that international developments would help them negotiate with Israel, which turned off their enthusiasm for national dialogue," Sharab told the Weekly. Sharab criticises some parties that requested full agreement to the Egyptian reconciliation paper as a condition to join the dialogue. He deemed it impossible for Cairo to develop a paper expressing the position of all factions, and that even if one could be developed it would amount to imposing a fait accompli on dialogue participants, making dialogue moot. On the contrary, parties may discuss reservations and modifications after sitting at the dialogue table -- indeed that is the point. While understanding to the position of factions that refused to join the dialogue due to ongoing political arrests, postponing the dialogue, Sharab said, means continuing the status quo in Gaza and the West Bank and giving opportunities to some to attain a more powerful position when dialogue resumes. (see p.6)
