Unless the Palestinians re-unite, there is really no need to hold peace conferences to resolve their issue, reads Doaa El-Bey While efforts are in full swing to hold the US-sponsored Middle East peace conference in Annapolis by the end of this month or early next month, as well as to set up the Damascus anti-conference meeting which is supposed to coincide with Annapolis, there are repeated calls to recapture internal Palestinian unity as the key for the success of any peace conference. Nasser Abu Aziz regarded both conferences as decisive and important steps for the Palestinian issue. Nevertheless, he questioned whether any of the two conferences would push the Palestinian issue forward or guarantee a better future for the Palestinian people. Contrary to the "peace of the brave" initiated by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and which led to the Oslo agreements, Annapolis is likely to produce the "peace of the weak" who lacks any trump cards for negotiations. Thus, going to Annapolis is not a priority for Abu Aziz. The state of weakness that the Palestine Authority, the opposition and the public are suffering from requires a reassessment of the Oslo agreement and its impact and more importantly focussing on regaining Palestinian unity. Meanwhile, he emphasised that the Palestinians should not turn their back on the international community, but should resort to the institutions of international legitimacy to resolve the conflict issues. "We are in need of an initiative from any Palestinian faction or institution to narrow the political and geographic division to recover Palestinian unity. That is far better than taking part in any gathering be it in Annapolis or Damascus," Abu Aziz wrote in the independent United Arab Emirates daily Akhbar Al-Arab. While he acknowledged the right of all Palestinian factions to freely and democratically express their point of view, Abu Aziz ruled out that the Damascus conference could be a suitable channel for democratic expression because it has just one objective, that of legitimising Hamas's insurgency against Palestinian democracy. If it really aims at counterbalancing the dangers of the Annapolis conference, then it should put resolving the state of inter-Palestinian division on top of the list of its priorities. Ahmed Dahbour questioned why in spite of holding an unprecedented number of conferences since the Balfour Declaration to resolve the Palestinian issue, it is still unresolved. Procrastination is the only achievement in most of these conferences. However, Dahbour wrote in the political Palestinian daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida that nowadays conferences are held in different circumstances. The Annapolis meeting would resume the-cat-and-mouse farce. "The US president George Bush who is keen to make an achievement before the end of his presidency, but who is biased towards Israel, cannot and does not want to reach a settlement of the Palestinian issue. Instead he seeks to play on the element of time." Dahbour regarded the Damascus conference as the second chapter that is likely to shake the Palestinian map. As it is financed by Iran and is likely to gather dissidents, he ruled out that it could achieve anything. Bilal Al-Hassan focussed on the Damascus conference in the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat. He wrote that the attempts of the Palestinian Authority to cancel the meeting by sending a top level delegation to Syria -- and its possible success -- showed that the Palestinian authorities are deeply concerned about popular Palestinian movements. He criticised Palestinian officials for working to thwart all popular efforts even if their agenda supports Fatah and works in the interest of the Palestinian people. As a result, the authority has recently tried to ban any popular meetings, ferociously attacking them and accusing them of working according to an external agenda. This newly adopted attitude was clearly shown in their ferocious opposition to the Damascus conference "that showed keenness to preserve Palestinian national unity as it sent invitations to the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian National Council, to Fatah and all the other factions. Nevertheless, the authority accused it of working according to a non-Palestinian agenda." The authority claimed, as Al-Hassan added, that it is against the establishment of a new Palestine Liberation Organisation. However, the establishment of such an organisation on a sound basis and through electoral votes could prevent the establishment of more extremist organisations. The Palestinian Authority is required to not give more space to popular movements but to work harder to regain Palestinian national unity. However, there are clear signs that calls for regaining inter-Palestinian unity are falling on deaf ears. Taher Al-Udwan wrote about the shameful exchange of accusations between Fatah and Hamas via satellite channels. "It is sad as well as amazing that the two ruling parties are placing more obstacles and red lines before any mutual dialogue than the obstacles they put in meeting the Israelis, their common enemy. "The Palestinian leaders in Gaza and Ramallah engage in arguments as if they are the rulers of the US and Russia. This is a kind of moral schizophrenia or an unrealistic approach that makes them forget their common fight against the Israeli occupation," Al-Udwan wrote in the independent Jordanian daily Al-Arab Al-Yom. These arguments, as Udwan wrote, could give the impression that the just struggle of the Palestinians for their rights has become a fight for authority and ruling posts. Thus, they could easily lose the support of the states that assist the Palestinian issue, who might perceive it as an issue of individuals fighting for power and authority rather than an issue of a nation and people. Elias Harfoush wrote in the London-based, pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat about the worrying state of fragmentation that is spreading throughout the Arab region. Thus, any attempt to open a dialogue or bridge differences is usually met with euphoria. That is exactly what happened when four Hamas members met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. As the first declared meeting since Hamas took over Gaza in June, the meeting was regarded as a good gesture for reopening channels of dialogue. However, all hopes were dashed when other Hamas leaders in Gaza used it to further escalate their differences with Fatah by declaring that they have nothing to do with the visit or with efforts to settle inter-Palestinian divisions.
