The crisis in Gaza was all-consuming, reads Doaa El-Bey Writers differed on whom to blame for the present crisis in Gaza -- the Israelis, the Palestinian government, Hamas, the US or the Arabs. However, they were unanimous in agreeing on the gravity of the situation and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible before it leads to more concessions on the part of the Palestinians. Opening the borders with Egypt was hailed as a positive but temporary step. Ezzeddin Darwish regarded opening the Egyptian borders in Rafah as a breach in the blockade imposed on Gaza for the last eight months. Although it allows them to stock up on staple goods, the Palestinian-Arab scene is still as sombre as ever because of the Israeli-American decision to resolve the Palestinian issue in a way that appeals to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and makes the Arabs mere witnesses to the burial of the Palestinian issue which was central to them for decades. In the Syrian political daily Tishreen, Darwish cast light on the present situation of all the parties. The Palestinians are politically, militarily and morally besieged in the West Bank and Gaza and there is no way out except by making concessions and accepting what the Israelis are offering them: no right of return to Palestinian refugees, no removal of settlements and accepting that Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel. The Arabs, who have failed to unite or agree, are leaving their most pressing issues for others to resolve them whereas the Israelis, who are supported by the US, view the current situation as an unprecedented chance to impose all the conditions they want and ignore any serious talk about a just and comprehensive peace. "In spite of the dark scene, the Arab opposition is starting to impose its presence on the ground. The first genuine step towards Arab unity would definitely reverse the order of things and it is coming sooner than both the US and Israel expect," Darwish concluded. But he did not elaborate how soon that step would come. Adel Mahmoud described the recent events in Gaza as another chapter in changing the Palestinian cause into a humanitarian issue like that of Darfur and Bosnia. That state could last for years and pave the way for more Palestinian concessions like accepting the wall of separation, the settlements and the Israeli-imposed final borders. Mahmoud emphasised in the Lebanese political weekly Al-Kifah Al-Arabi that Israel would never help in establishing a Palestinian state, but that it was the Palestinians who are capable of establishing their own state and providing it with the means and tactics to survive and grow besides a monstrous state. He did not rule out that this could be an impossible mission, but added there was no other alternative. Mahmoud advocated that Hamas should change its opposition tactics because its present tactics would create a catastrophe in Gaza. "The problem is that no government in the world will be able to provide services for citizens in Gaza, but Hamas insists on doing so all the same. "Also, any resistance cannot live without the support of its people. Israel wants to destroy Hamas 'the government' and Hamas 'the resistance'. Meanwhile, Hamas wants the government and the resistance. In the presence of Palestinian division, Arab indifference and Israeli opportunism is a recipe for an utter crisis," he wrote. Ahmed Abu Khalil wrote that the Palestinians are leading a dual struggle against the occupier on the one hand and their national rulers on the other. He ascribed the suffering of the Palestinians to the state of "half liberation, half occupation" that the Palestinians leaders imposed on their people. The idea of somebody on top of authority and another leading the opposition appealed to the Palestinian leadership, but it did not last for long. In its attempt to prove that it is an independent authority or on the way to achieving complete independence, the Palestinian Authority changed the Israelis from an occupier to a negotiating party to the extent that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared in Annapolis, "we differ with Israel on some matters but we agree on one enemy, which is terrorism." And we all know what terrorism means when it is mentioned in the US. "Why should the Palestinian leadership resort to such political behaviour at a time when the Palestinians are repeatedly showing their renewed capability to fight?" Abu Khalil asked in the Jordanian independent political daily Al-Arab Al-Yom. Hamad Al-Majed hailed the patience and perseverance of Gazans facing the Israeli blockade as well as the difficult weather conditions. He also praised them for their patience with Hamas which chose confrontation with Israel as its strategy. Al-Majed also supported the Egyptian reaction to breaking the borders at the Rafah crossing. He believed that despite the political embarrassment and the geographical problem that opening the borders could cause, allowing the Palestinians into Egypt helped Cairo achieve two objectives: lifted the suffering of their brothers in Gaza and sent a message to Israel that it would not accept that criminal blockade on Gaza any longer. However, he warned against heaping blame on Hamas as the cause of the plight in Gaza. "Blaming Hamas and holding it responsible for the blockade would give Israel the green light to carry on its unfair and criminal blockade on the pretext that this is what others are doing," Al-Majed wrote in the London-based independent daily Asharq Al-Awsat. The United Arab Emirates independent daily Al-Khaleej described this week's negotiations between Abbas and Olmert as inappropriate in form as well as in content since it is sending all the incorrect signals: Israel could construe from the meeting that their blockade on Gaza does not bother Abbas and that Gazans could reach the conclusion that Abbas does not care about their fate. In addition, the meeting offered Olmert support in the face of his opponents at a time when he is facing internal difficulties due to his failure in Gaza and the war in Lebanon in 2006. The editorial cast doubt that these meetings could come up with any positive results because the limits of a settlement with the Palestinians are clearly drawn and no Israeli official will transgress them -- the limits include no right of return of Palestinian refugees, no removal of settlements, Jerusalem will be the eternal capital of Israel, no sovereignty to any Palestinian authority and any future Palestinian state would be a mere separate entity that could be like Gaza. "Negotiations with the Israelis who are besieging and starving the Palestinians are taking place at a time when inter-Palestinian dialogue is impeded. No matter how hard it tries, the Palestinian Authority cannot persuade the Palestinians or Arabs that this is natural. That is another reason why the Israeli are reluctant to make any concessions, but they are happy that the negotiations are still going on," the editorial read with a hint of cynicism. While the Palestinian issue is far from resolved, the death of a Palestinian leader who spent some six decades of his life struggling to establish a Palestinian state did not pass unnoticed. George Habash, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, was hailed in the press as one of the most charismatic and devoted Palestinian leaders ever. Maher Al-Taher wrote in the Palestinian political daily Al-Hayat Al-Jedida that Habash had always believed in the importance of Palestinian unity as a key to victory. He also believed in the importance of Arab unity. Shortly before his death, Habash had asked Taher about the news in Gaza, and when he told him that the Palestinians had crossed into Rafah, he smiled and said that one day all borders between the Arab states would be removed and the dream of unity would be realised. Habash died before seeing any signs that the day was near.
