The resumption of direct negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel in Washington, which are set to start today (Thursday 2 September), was the focus of the pundits this week. In the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat, Bilal Hassen wrote that "Palestine's acceptance of direct negotiations with Israel, without preconditions is a return to the 'zero point' of the Oslo accords signed in 1993." In 'Palestinian negotiations: back to square one' Hassen wrote that 17 years have returned to the start and the story repeats itself. Hassen said the Palestinian negotiator was heading to the Washington negotiations in order to seek the establishment of a Palestinian state within one year. But the Israelis say something different, talking about a temporary Palestinian state. Meanwhile, Hassen continues, the Americans also say something else, seeking with Israel a formula for continued Israeli settlement construction (within pre-existing settlements), whilst confronting the Palestinian issue at the same time. "This resembles a difficult chemical equation, and no one knows how to solve it bar three individuals: the Israeli official who imposed the conditions, the US official who supported these conditions, and the Palestinian official who was defeated in the matter," Hassen wrote. Also in Asharq Al-Awsat Amir Taheri wrote that the real problem is that with a few honourable exceptions, to most Palestinian leaders, Palestine remains a cause rather than a political project for the creation of a state. "As long as Palestine is a cause rather than a project, no Palestinian leader will be able to negotiate the creation of a state," Taheri wrote in 'Palestine: a cause or a political project?' Taheri explained that Israeli pioneers learned that lesson early on. "This is why David Ben-Gurion and his colleagues accepted a United Nations partition plan that gave the Jews a tiny chunk of the Mandate for Palestine in the shape of Swiss cheese. They were anxious to become a state as fast as possible; all other matters, including the acquisition of defensible borders, would come later," Taheri wrote. However, the Palestinians, Taheri laments, bought into the Arab League scheme "that wanted Palestine as a cause rather than a state." Osman Mirghani described the resumption of talks as "handicapped negotiations". In the pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat Mirghani wrote that Palestinians are divided and are competing in the face of a stubborn Israeli negotiator, and an Israeli prime minister "who the majority of Israelis do not believe is sincere in his pursuit of genuine peace." The question that arises, Mirghani asks, is how can Palestinians achieve true peace, meeting their aspirations, and providing them with security and stability, whilst they are divided between the West Bank, under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, and Gaza, under the control of Hamas? Maamoun Fandi, also in Asharq Al-Awsat is optimistic by the fact that "the US has invited the relevant parties to hold direct negotiations in America at this time, 18 months after Barack Obama took office in the White House, whilst setting a deadline of one year for an agreement to be reached. It means that first and foremost the US president is optimistic about the possibility of an agreement being reached." However, Fandi warned there will be no agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis unless there is a real force guarding the Palestinians' back rather than big and small Arab states competing to play a role. "The Palestinians can achieve a breakthrough in the forthcoming talks if the Arabs are united in supporting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas instead of being divided between a group that supports Hamas and another that supports Fatah," Fandi wrote. "The Palestinian division is not simply an internal one, as some may think, but is first an Arab division, and secondly a regional one," he added. In the London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Abdel-Bari Atwan wrote that the direct negotiations are supposed to deal with the final issues -- settlements, the right of return, occupied Jerusalem, water and borders. "We do not know how Netanyahu's extremist right-wing government will make any concessions on these fundamental issues while it is committed to the settlements and refuses any discussion about occupied Jerusalem which it considers Israel's unified and eternal capital," Atwan wrote. Atwan also focussed on the issue of the legitimacy of the Palestinian president. He wrote that Abbas does not have authority from the Palestinian people, neither in the homeland or the diaspora, to negotiate and make concessions on their behalf. Atwan explained that Abbas's term in office as the Palestinian National Authority chairman ended two years ago. The PLO's Executive Committee powers on which he relies to justify entering direct negotiations and representing the Palestinian people are illegal because they expired 10 years ago and most of its members represent factions that do not exist in the Palestinian arena or have any representation in the elected Palestinian Legislative Council. "In other words, any settlement that the Palestinian president reaches will be illegal and not binding on the Palestinian people. We say this despite our deep doubts that such a settlement can be reached unless it conforms totally to Israeli specifications and conditions," Atwan concluded. The latest statements of Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in which he denounced the upcoming peace talks and called for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to "perish from this world", caused a stir among Arab pundits. Rabbi Ovadia was quoted as saying during his weekly sermon that "Abu Mazen and all these evil people should perish from this world. God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians." The Shas spiritual leader also called the Palestinians "evil, bitter enemies of Israel. It is forbidden to be merciful to them," he was quoted as saying. "You must send missiles towards them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable." The Palestinian Authority along with Arab pundits condemned the statements as racist and inciting. In its editorial, the Qatari newspaper Al-Watan described the statements as "an Israeli criminal demand". Despite official Israeli statements claiming that the speech did not represent the stance of the Israeli government, the editorial argued that the rabbi's party is part of the ruling coalition and thus this attitude reflects "the hostile spirit by which Israeli negotiators will enter the negotiating room." In the Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Hafez Al-Barghouti reminded readers this was not the first time the Shas' rabbi proclaims racist comments against Muslims and Palestinians. Focussing on double-standards, Al-Barghouti wrote that if these words "came out of a Muslim sheikh like for example Abu Qatada, the whole world would turn upside down on him" and would not pass by unnoticed as happened to those of the Shas leader. "What Ovadia said is not a new revelation to the occupying mentality which is based on the hatred of the other. Every day there is an Israeli criminal act against us [Palestinians], a photo that shows a vicious mentality or a statement that reveals a sick mind. Despite this we have to preserve our humanity and prevent ourselves from going where advocates of killing and hatred gather in the lowest level of hell," Al-Barghouti wrote.
