Alwaght- Mahmoud Abbas-led Palestinian Authority (PA) that over the past two decades provided valuable services to the Israeli regime these days is a dying entity that cannot even administer the West Bank and this is what worries the Israeli officials.
In a recent speech, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Tel Aviv needs the PA and should not allow it to collapse and strengthen it by any means. Such remarks demonstrate that the Israeli understanding of the PA performance and nature is way distant from the expectations of the Palestinian people from the PA, and there is a complicated relationship between this institution and the Israeli regime.
To discuss the aspects of the Israeli concerns about demise of the PA and their bilateral relations, Alwaght talked to Hussein Royvaran, an Iranian expert of West Asian affairs.
Netanyahu’s remarks a scandal for Abbas
Commenting on the recent positions of Netanyahu about the need to prevent collapse of the PA, Mr Royvaran said: “Netanyahu’s comments that the Palestinians should forget about forming a Palestinian state, is contrary to Oslo Accords and international principles that recognize the right of self-determination for the nations. These remarks are also an unprecedented attack on the beliefs of the Palestinian nation and the Western political positions that see the solution lying in two-state initiative. Such bitter stances by the Israelis are somehow scandalous for Abbas who still believes that compromise to the Israelis can help realize the goal of forming an independent Palestinian state.”
Mr Royvaran continued that when Netanyahu refuses the formation of a Palestinian state, he actually officially ignores the existence of the PA and its President Abbas. Still, he says that the PA is necessary for Israel, implying that this institution actually serves the Israeli interests. In other words, the PA does not seek formation of a Palestinian state.
“Netanyahu's words about Abbas were worse than a thousand insults, and the fact that PA Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh , strongly attacks Netanyahu in response is because the words of the prime minister of the Israeli regime, in a way, questioned the authority of the Palestinian Authority and Fatah Movement over Palestine, and the Palestinian Authority’s leaders should apologize to the Palestinian people.”
Netanyahu’s remarks are important because they put the PA in front of a dilemma, said Mr Royvaran; either to continue compromises to Tel Aviv and accept humiliation or quickly announce that since the Israeli government has not committed to Oslo Accords, Ramallah withdraws from them. Given this scandal, if he continues to work with the enemies, Abbas will be recognized as a traitor to the nation.
Unknown fate of Dayton Agreement
Mr Royvaran continued that now the Israeli regime has crossed all of the security and political red lines and there are no more lines in front of it. In the second intifada in 2000, the dramatic development was that some armed forces of the PA under Yasser Arafat were involved in anti-Israeli operations. This was why about 15 years ago, top US officer Keith Dayton visited the occupied territories and talked to the PA officials and finally managed to change Abbas security doctrine to avoid repeat of past experiences.
“I think that with the recent remarks of Netanyahu, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and National Security Minister Itmar Ben-Gvir it is unclear if the PA military forces will remain committed to Dayton-Abbas agreements. Currently, only a small number of the PA forces have involved in anti-Israeli operations, but this involvement will broaden in the future. They think that now they are serving the Palestinian ideals, but if they decide that there is no ideal of liberation under Abbas and they are serving the Israeli regime in the PA ranks, they will review their thoughts.”
PA weakness; an opportunity and a threat
Pointing to the weakness of the PA, Mr Royvaran held that this status serves as an opportunity to the Palestinians while it is a threat at the same time. It is a threat because if Abbas continues cooperation with the Israelis, he openly serves the enemy. It is an opportunity because it makes crystal clear to the Palestinian society that working under the PA is a kind of subservience to Tel Aviv, and at a time the Israelis have stepped up their crimes in the West Bank, this will allow the Palestinians to make a transparent choice and stance about the PA.
Two different Palestinian approaches
The expert also had his say about the prospects of the West Bank developments in the shadow of decline of the PA, maintaining that despite the fact that all Palestinians demand a government, there are two approaches in this regard. A group of Palestinians argue a government is possible through talks to Israeli regime. They are from Abbas camp. The second group believes that dialogue and peace with the enemy bears no fruits and the effective option is armed resistance. Now a majority of Palestinians favor pro-resistance option, something indicating that Abbas discourse has lost its validity and performance.
What the resistance says is more trustworthy and plausible because the it has the record of pushing back the enemy from Gaza and a Lebanon. But the PA discourse is hard to trust because the PA signed a deal with Tel Aviv 30 years ago, but no achievement has been made, and so people are rejective of it.
Israeli miscalculation in the West Bank will be regretful
Mr Royvaran addressed the recent threats of the Israeli officials about a military campaign in the West Bank. He said that such threats are repetitive and the Israeli regime is already existing in the West Bank and launch security operations, but since its costs were high, he left the security to the Palestinians themselves. Now if the PA refuses to cooperate with it and the occupation forces want to take the security arrangements back from the Palestinians, they will have to directly confront the Palestinian society and this raises Tel Aviv’s susceptibility and costs and can even topple the Israeli government.
In 2000, Ehud Barak, then Israeli prime minister, won the parliamentary election with a promise of retreat from southern Lebanon and decreasing the Israeli casualties. For the Israeli regime whose nature is based on housing colonization and works to usurp the lands of the others, retreat from an occupied land is a kind of political heresy, but this took place in southern Lebanon because the resistance increased the Israeli costs. Now, the Israelis make a mistake they made in Lebanon and their costs will rise, and in the future, regretting their present decisions, they will have to review their policies.
