By Daoud Kuttab

Although the United States has insisted to the Israelis and Palestinians that all five permanent-status issues are part of the US-brokered negotiations, it was only when an Israeli radio report mentioned the issue that the topic suddenly gained credibility in the eyes of many skeptics. The Palestine News Network ran a short translation from Israeli radio, confirming that US Secretary of State John Kerry had made reference to the issue of Palestinian refugees and that he had put forward four locations for their absorption.

Kerry’s suggestion no doubt reflects the various discussions, differences and understandings between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly insisted that Israel acknowledge its historic and moral responsibility in creating the Palestinian refugee problem. Many expect that this issue, more than any actual agreement on numbers, could be the gateway to a breakthrough.

After the issue of who is responsible is resolved, it is understood that Palestinian refugees are to be given choices, including returning to their homeland in Palestine, staying where they are or going to certain third countries. The fourth option, which is highly contested, calls for some Palestinians to settle in Israel. The issue is finessed by having this small population absorbed over a number of years based on Israel approving it within the context of family reunification. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

Following appeared in today’s Jordan Times.

How similar is today to yesteryear?

When US president Bill Clinton failed to move Palestine Liberation Organisation chairman Yasser Arafat on the issue of Jerusalem at the 2000 Camp David talks, he decided to turn to America’s Arab allies.

He tried and failed.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, unable to change Mahmoud Abbas’ position, is trying to do the same. He will also fail.

The contentious issues appear to concern Jerusalem and convincing Palestinians to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Kerry began his recent Arab trip with quick visits to Amman and Riyadh, on January 5, before the meeting in Paris, on January 12, with the Arab Peace Initiative follow-up committee.

Shortly after Kerry’s visit, on January 8, Amman was host to a quick visit by the Palestinian president.

He made a statement to the effect that Palestinians will not accept any deal short of having East Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Palestine. Abbas also reiterated the Palestinian refusal of any recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

In Arab tradition it is not customary to say bad things about a dead person even if he/she is your biggest enemy. I am not sure that this tradition will work on most Palestinians regarding the Israeli king of the settlement movement, but for some reason the passing of Ariel Sharon after the withdrawal from Gaza and the long years in a coma have taken away some of the bitterness that many felt about Ariel Sharon.

Ask any Palestinian about Sharon and they will rattle almost verbatim the terrible things he has done. Gazans will quickly recall his role in crushing the Palestinian fedayin (guerrillas) in the strip shortly after the 1967 occupation. In Lebanon Sharon’s role in the war to destroy the PLO, his unholy alliance with the Lebanese Phalanges and the role of the Israeli army in allowing for the Sabra and Shattilamassacre will probably be the quick answer to many.

West Bank Palestinians have the image of Sharon with his maps planning one settlement after the other and his calls on the eve of the Oslo Accords to settlers to take over every available hilltop, still ring in many ears.

Sharon’s legacy in Jerusalem can be seen daily by Palestinians walking down from Damascus Gate to the Al Qsa mosque. Halfway down a lWad quarters is a two-story house that Sharon took over as some kind of symbol of Jewish presence in the Palestinian populated neighborhoods of the old city of Jerusalem. A huge Israeli flag and a Jewish menorah remind all of Sharon’s house. Close circuit cameras (among 2,000 in the old city) ensure that no one tries to bring down the flag without being spotted and no doubt later arrested. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

The Palestinians’ insistence on regarding late Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, even after his death, as nothing more than a war criminal responsible for the massacre in Sabra and Shatila and the construction of the settlements is overly simplistic and anachronistic. More than anything else, this approach misses the complexity of the man and the central leadership role he had in Israeli history. Yes, Sharon did build settlements, but on two occasions he also removed Jews from their homes: once, when serving as defense minister, when he evacuated the Sinai settlements in 1982, as part of the peace agreement with Egypt; and again, as prime minister, when he developed and implemented the plan to disengage from the Gaza Strip and the north of the West Bank in 2005.

When senior Fatah member Jibril Rajoub bemoans the fact that he never got to see Sharon tried as a war criminal by the International Criminal Court and accuses him of assassinating PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat — and he does this on the very day that Sharon died — he is giving voice to a very narrow and selective worldview. When my colleague Daoud Kuttab turns to the younger generation of Palestinians and only attributes the massacre in the refugee camps to Sharon, without mentioning the evacuation of Yamit (from the Sinai), the Disengagement and the establishment of the Kadima Party — which Sharon thought of as a platform to consolidate an agreement with the Palestinians — he is distorting the image and person of Sharon as a bold and pragmatic leader. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

If you were to ask a 20-year-old Palestinian today about Ariel Sharon, you might be surprised how little this generation knows about him. The past eight years, in which Sharon became incapacitated, and the few years before that in which he had softened his radical stance, appear to have chipped away at the warmonger image that is still etched in the consciousness of almost every Palestinian over 25 years old.

More than any other Israeli military figure, Sharon seems to be present in every violent mark since the Nakba and creation of Israel.

He joined the Israeli army in 1948 and one of his first assignments by David Ben Gurion was in 1953 to establish Unit 101, which focused on retaliation to cross-border attacks by the Palestinian fedayeen (militants). After one such attack, Sharon’s men crossed into the Palestinian town of Qibya, then under Jordan’s rule, and killed 69 Palestinian villagers, two-thirds of whom were women and children. The Qibya massacre showed Sharon’s ruthlessness and would become a symbol of the brutal Israeli retaliations to any Palestinian resistance attacks. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

Multiple reports two weeks before US Secretary of State John Kerry’s 21st visit to Palestine and Israel focused on a new Israeli concern: unorganized and uncoordinated acts of violence. The conclusion was that Israel’s main problem was impromptu and independent acts by frustrated Palestinians. One of the implications of this Israeli security assessment was that the Palestinian government had been successful in helping stem organized violence against Israel.

However, when Kerry arrived with his newly formulated bridging proposal for a framework agreement, the Israeli leadership made a sudden U-turn. Standing next to the top US diplomat, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched a strange and unwarranted attack against Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas over embracing the released Palestinian prisoners. Netanyahu also went out of his way to repeat the Israeli broken record criticizing the incitement of violence and the embracing of terrorists.

“I know that I am committed to peace, but unfortunately, given the actions and words of Palestinian leaders, there’s growing doubt in Israel that the Palestinians are committed to peace,” said Netanyahu in the presence of Kerry. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

When the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) agreed to recognize Israel and sign a memorandum of understanding in 1993, the organization was experiencing an all-time low. The PLO had been routed from Beirut, and later from Tripoli. An internal struggle within the Fatah movement had erupted under the name Fatah al-Intifada, and the Berlin Wall had fallen, leaving Palestinians without their major international ally.

The agreement reached as a result of secret talks in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, allowed for the return of tens of thousands of Palestinian fighters, leaders and their families, but it failed to produce peace, independence or even a suspension of Jewish settlements. The West Bank was divided into areas A, B and C. In justifying their acceptance of this inadequate deal, Palestinians expected that the five-year interim agreement would soon translate into an independent state.

Now, 20 years later, Palestinian officials are finding themselves in a somewhat similar situation. The Arab world is deeply divided along sectarian lines. Egypt, the largest and strongest Arab country, is no longer involved in any Palestinian-related issue. On the contrary, Egyptians are extremely upset with the Hamas leadership in Gaza and have closed the Rafah crossing point after having demolished the tunnels. Even the United Kingdom, which was the colonial power just prior to the Nakba, is now publicly stating that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not one of its foreign policy priorities. Meanwhile, settlers have doubled since 1993, and the Gaza split has left Palestinian leaders even more vulnerable to pressure, similar to that which Arafat faced prior to the Oslo signing.  Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

Following appeared in today’s Jordan Times

By Daoud Kuttab

At face value, the slap in the face senior Fatah leader Jibril Rajoub received from a member of the Palestinian parliament does not constitute material for a news analysis. The strike by parliament member Fateh Abu Rub that occurred Dec. 18 in the Grand Park Hotel’s lobby in Ramallah was resolved relatively quickly, as the two Fatah leaders issued simultaneous statements saying that they have agreed to forgive and forget.

What makes this altercation different is that it might be an early warning to the leadership tug-of-war that is expected in the aftermath of the reign of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. On Jan. 1, 2014, Fatah celebrated its 49th anniversary with mixed expectations as to its future.

The danger behind what occurred in the hotel lobby, as Palestinians were preparing to meet the Chinese foreign minister, is that it reflects geographic and tribal sensitivities as well as political ones. Supporters of Rajoub, who comes from the Hebron area town of Dura, and Abu Rub, who comes from the Jenin area, were ready to defend their respective leaders. Continue Reading »

A Prisoner in Ramallah.pdf