Ramzy Baroud's Blog

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa used exceptionally tough language
during a Cairo news conference 9 September, when he lashed out at Palestinian
factionalism, saying that the League is going as far as studying the possibility
of imposing sanctions on quarrelling Palestinians. 

"I am extremely angry with the Palestinian organisations... We are studying the
measures to be taken in the face of the current Palestinian chaos," he said,
after a meeting of Arab foreign ministers. He added, "the sanctions would not be
against anyone in particular. They would be against the party which obstructs
reconciliation and maybe against everyone or against the organisation which
obstructs Egyptian efforts."

Considering Moussa's devoted efforts in the past aimed at solidifying a
Palestinian front and generating a semblance of a Arab unity in its support, one
can only sympathise with the head of the League's frustration and indeed
"extreme anger".

Palestinian disunity, and political -- if not, geopolitical -- fragmentation is
eroding the Palestinian cause more than all Israeli efforts, walls and military
incursions combined. The painful-to-watch televised bickering between
representatives of various Palestinian factions has led to confusion among
traditionally pro-Palestinian groups worldwide. The political objectives -- once
agreed upon as "constants" -- and symbols that once united Palestinians
everywhere are now wide open for extreme interpretation. 

In fact, "respecting the sanctity of Palestinian blood", which for long served
as the lowest possible denominator agreed on by every Palestinian grouping, has
been violated many times in recent months and years; too many times to count.
Repeating the slogan is, at this point, an empty mantra, joining the numerous
other mantras that have for long served as a sedative for the hapless masses,
whether Arabs, Palestinians or both. 

That said, a reality check is also in order. It might be easy for the Arab
League to pass a measure or two to sanction Palestinian groups who might be
perceived as the ones jeopardising the Cairo talks, whether the ones underway or
the larger gatherings scheduled for October. Not even Palestinians would dare
criticise the League for practising some brotherly tough love for the sake of
the cause of Palestine, which is supposedly the main overriding priority for
every Arab state -- another mantra. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on the Arab
League, as it mulls over the issue of sanctions, to consider the role that some
of its own members have played in instigating Palestinian infighting. 

Following Hamas's majority victory in Legislative Council elections in January
2006, Arab countries could have congratulated the winner, promised cooperation
and urged unity among rivals. Instead, some chose to do the exact opposite,
ostracising Hamas from their meetings and conferences, playing favourites and
smoothing the way for US-led international sanctions that have devastated
Palestinian society in Gaza, leading to utter desperation and strife.

Moreover, some of those countries found it appropriate to train Palestinian
fighters loyal to the Fatah faction in preparation for combat not against Israel
but against their own Palestinian brethren in Gaza and the West Bank. The funds
for such camps were, of course, provided courtesy of Uncle Sam, and some of the
weapons were widely reportedly to have been channelled through Israel. 

As for the embargo that has turned an already desperate Gaza into a secure
open-air prison, with medicine being smuggled through tunnels and malnutrition
wreaking havoc among the young and old, it would have not succeeded if Israel
were the only gatekeeper. Unfortunately, the fact that Egypt has sealed its
borders to Palestinians in Gaza made the punishment complete. 

Secretary-General Moussa perhaps enjoys more respect among Palestinians than
some of their own leaders, but the truth must be told, especially since has he
had the courage to open the door of candour and honesty. "Do they [the
Palestinians] have a state for them to be fighting over [for] ministerial
positions? We kidded ourselves and called it the state of Palestine. It's not a
state until it obtains its full rights." 

He cannot possibly be anymore accurate. Palestinians are nowhere near the
process of state building and they should remain a national liberation movement
until freedom is attained. But equally we also kid ourselves when we place our
full trust in the Arab League, which is merely a reflection of the wishes of its
members with records that are morally porous themselves. 

What is the point of lending the Egypt talks complete trust if some parties
receive their pointers from Washington and brazenly consult with their "peace
partners" in Tel Aviv? It makes good sense for those who are not on Washington's
payroll -- but on its "terror list" -- to be immensely wary and constantly
alarmed. 

On the other hand, one cannot completely override the possibility that Hamas is
in consultation with, and maybe to a degree influenced by, Iran. But let's be
realistic for a moment. What is Hamas's political leverage amid reconciliation
talks given the level of political and financial validation and backing that its
main rival enjoys? Very little, indeed, aside from its ability to hold on to the
impoverished Gaza Strip and with a lonely Israeli soldier in its custody. Iran
stepped up its support of Hamas and the latter is willing to accept the support
of Micronesia if that latter is willing to offer it. 

True, Palestinian unity is a must and is a prerequisite to any meaningful,
large scale Palestinian strategy aimed at ending the Israeli occupation. But the
term must be appreciated, qualified and its practical meaning understood fully
before it too turns into another cheap Arab mantra, inscribed on many street
corners, but no longer meaning anything.