Does It Really Matter Who the Next Palestinian President Is?

by Khaled Abu Toameh
September 8, 2015 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6444/next-palestinian-president

It is hard to understand why some Westerners believe that Abbas's departure could boost the prospects of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. To many Palestinians, it is clear that the PLO or Fatah official who replaces Abbas will not be able to make any concessions to Israel. Any Palestinian leader who dares to make the slightest concession to Israel will be denounced as a traitor and will be lucky if he stays in power or stays alive.
The West needs to understand that no Palestinian leader is authorized to make concessions to Israel for the sake of peace. Neither the PLO nor the Fatah leaderships would ever approve of such concessions. And, of course, Hamas also will never accept any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, except one that leads to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic empire in the region.
Saeb Erekat has been negotiating with Israel for the past two decades and his position has never changed. Like Arafat and Abbas, he too will never sign a peace agreement with Israel that does not include 100% of the territories captured by Israel in 1967. Erekat is not authorized to make any concessions on Jerusalem or the "right of return" for Palestinians to their former homes inside Israel.
Abbas's successor will undoubtedly declare that he intends to follow in the footsteps of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas may go, but his legacy, like that of Arafat, will not.

The recent talk about Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas's intention to quit political life has left many wondering whether his departure would bring about real changes for the Palestinians and the "peace process" with Israel.

During the past few weeks, the 80-year-old Abbas has been telling his aides and friends that he is tired and wants to spend more time with his family.

It is not clear at this stage whether Abbas is serious about his intention to step down. His critics argue that he is just bluffing, while some of his Fatah and PLO colleagues maintain that this time his threat to resign is real.

The real question, however, is not whether Abbas is serious or not about retiring. Rather, it is what impact, if at all, his departure from the scene would have on Palestinians and future relations with Israel.

Several senior PLO and Fatah officials already see themselves as potential successors to Abbas. As the chances of holding presidential elections are zero to none (mainly due to the ongoing dispute between the PA and Hamas), the PLO and Fatah will elect the new president.

This means that the next Palestinian Authority president will be a senior PLO or Fatah official. Recently, the names of several potential candidates have been floated. They include Saeb Erekat, the veteran Palestinian chief negotiator who was recently elected as PLO Secretary-General -- a move that has boosted his chances of succeeding Abbas.

But neither Erekat nor any other PLO or Fatah officials would be able to bring about real changes in the post-Abbas era -- certainly not in the "peace process" with Israel.

When Yasser Arafat died in 2004, there was hope that whoever succeeded him would adopt a new policy – one that would lead to a final peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israel.

However, it was obvious from day one that Mahmoud Abbas would not be different from his predecessor. In fact, Abbas has, during the past decade, repeatedly vowed to walk in Arafat's footsteps. Abbas has since kept his promise by rejecting a number of Israeli offers, simply because they do not comply with 100% of his demands. To this day, Abbas continues to insist that Israel withdraw from all the land it captured in 1967, including east Jerusalem.

Yasser Arafat (L) and Mahmoud Abbas, pictured in a Fatah propaganda poster. The Arabic text reads "Bearer of the trust" on top, and on the bottom: "I call on you to hold onto national unity. It is more precious than all of us."

Abbas is not the only one who is demanding from Israel 100% of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. This has been -- and continues to be -- the official policy of the PLO and Fatah.

That is why it is hard to understand why some Westerners believe that Abbas's departure could boost the prospects of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. To many Palestinians, it is perfectly clear that the PLO or Fatah official who replaces Abbas will not be able to make any concessions to Israel. Any Palestinian leader who dares to make the slightest concession to Israel will be denounced as a traitor and will be lucky if he or she stays in power or stays alive.

What the West needs to understand is that no Palestinian leader is authorized to make concessions to Israel for the sake of peace. Neither the PLO nor the Fatah leaderships would ever approve of such concessions. And then, of course, there is Hamas, which also will never accept any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The only peace agreement that Hamas will ever accept is one that leads to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic empire in the region.

Erekat has been negotiating with Israel for the past two decades and his position has never changed. Like Arafat and Abbas, he too will never sign a peace agreement with Israel that does not include 100% of the land captured by Israel in 1967. And, like Arafat and Abbas, Erekat is not authorized to make any concessions on Jerusalem or the "right of return" for Palestinians to their former homes inside Israel.

Abbas's successor will head the same Palestinian Authority, the same PLO and the same Fatah. These three institutions have a fixed and consistent policy that envisages the creation of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital on one hundred percent of the 1967 territories. They also share the same policy regarding the issue of Palestinian refugees, namely that they should be allowed to return to their former homes inside Israel.

Under a new leader, the PA, the PLO and Fatah will continue to stick to their current policies. None of them is going to change even one position because of the identity of the leader. Those who think that a change is possible under a new leader are living in an illusion. Israel and the international community will continue to face the same demands the Palestinians have been making for the past two decades.

Palestinians should also not expect any changes on their internal front. It would take a miracle for Abbas's successor to end the sharp dispute between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which has been in control of the Gaza Strip since the summer of 2007. The gap between the two sides remains as wide as ever, and the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is likely to continue for many more years.

In his inauguration speech, Abbas's successor will undoubtedly declare that he or she intends to follow in the footsteps of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. This means that the current stalemate in the peace process will continue. It also means that Palestinians will have to live with the reality that they already have two separate governments – a PLO-led entity in the West Bank and a Hamas-controlled mini-state in the Gaza Strip.

Those who talk about reviving the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" need to take these facts into consideration. Otherwise, they will continue to delude themselves and others into thinking that the post-Abbas era would bring about real changes in the region. Arafat is gone, but his spirit lives on over the region. Abbas may go, but his legacy, like that of Arafat, will not.

Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on X (formerly Twitter)

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Related Topics: Palestinian Authority

Recent Articles by Khaled Abu Toameh

Hamas Must Be Defeated, Not Legitimized, 2024-11-10
Iran's New Plan: Lost Gaza, So Take West Bank, 2024-09-05
Iran's War Against Israel - From the West Bank, 2024-08-28
Palestinians' Musical Chairs: Replacing One Mohammed with Another Mohammed, 2024-03-01
Palestinians Need New Leaders, Not New Governments, 2024-02-26

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

8 Reader Comments

Stan Lee • Sep 8, 2015 at 19:09

They became "Palestinians" as they sought to draw a territory on the map of the Middle East. Before that, when part of Ottoman Empire, the land was a portion of Syria on Turkey's map. When Turkey, a WW1 ally of Germany and Austria, were beaten by the allies, Britain, France, etc.,the conquered territory was divided by Britain and France. Britain renamed the area in question "Palestine Protectorate." The name "Palestine" was resurrected from the name of that territory centuries ago, when the Romans conquered Judea. To spite the Judeans (jews), Rome named it "Palestina," believing that title would further humiliate the Judeans, since even after Roman conquest, those same Judeans had an ongoing guerilla war against Rome.
Come 1947, the State of Israel (the same Judea) was granted unanimous nationhood by the UN. It was to be a Jewish state, a state to once again be home for the Jews, who had volunteered to fight in the British Army-Europe & Middle East. The Arabs of the same region had collaborated with German side.

Reply->

Artiewhitrefox • Sep 8, 2015 at 17:32

No. A Quran follower is a Quran follower. They are all the same.

Reply->

Henry Federman • Sep 8, 2015 at 17:07

No matter who is picked, there'll never be peace between so-called 'Palestinians' and Israel as long as there is one who has enough guts to say 'enough' killing between us. That's the policy of the three 'no's': no peace, no negotiations, no recognizing of Israel. Has any Palestinian got the guts to do that? They have been doing that since Bill Clinton, who gave them 95% of what they say they wanted. Ehud Barack gave them even more including East Jerusalem. So, what was their reason for refusing? Their excuse was that they wanted the return of all Palestinians to Israel.
That was of acceptable to Israel, it would have destroyed them.

Reply->

John MacArthur • Sep 8, 2015 at 16:35

When Abbas goes, the smart money will be on Erekat to succeed him. He, or indeed any successor, is not the problem, however, since their mantra will simply read as 'more of the same' which the Israelis have been dealing with for decades. The problem will lie with Hamas, who have a younger and more violently inclined demographic and support base in Judea and Samaria. Hamas will pry open any sign of PA weakness or disunity, lack of transition or whatever is likely to promote confrontation, impeding any pseudo-democratic power transition. If even a small power vacuum becomes evident, they will rush to fill it.

Reply->

Wallace Brand • Sep 8, 2015 at 12:38

The "occupation" of land in 1967 was a "military occupation" but not a "belligerent occupation" within the meaning of the regulations under the 4th Hague Convention (1910) as Jordan was an illegal occupier, not a legitimate sovereign. See Article 43. Jordan won that land in an aggressive war in 1948.

Only two countries in the entire world recognized Jordan as sovereign in the West Bank. This is land, the collective political rights of self-determination to which had been agreed would be placed in trust in the San Remo Resolution with the Jewish People as the cestui que trust.. The trust would vest when the Jewish People had unified control over it as it established in 1967 in the course of a defensive war. https://www.academia.edu/14948195/Palestine_--_The_Jewish_People_s_State_under_International_Law

In 1948, instead of helping the beneficiary of the rights enforce them, the trustee, "Perfidious Albion", through its position in the Arab Legion helped Jordan establish its illegal occupation by providing it with arms, ammunition, and professional army officers.

In 1920, the Jews did not want immediate statehood because the relatively small number of Jews made that impractical. What they wanted was the collective political rights to self-determination and getting the opportunity to develop the land so as to increase the Jewish population until it was in the majority and had the capability of exercising sovereignty.

Sacher, "A Jewish Palestine: the Jewish case for a British trusteeship." That occurred first in 1948 in the territory soon to be defined as within the Green Line. The remainder of the area that had been placed in trust vested in 1967 when the Jewish people obtained unified control over it.

Reply->

Harvey • Sep 8, 2015 at 12:19

Another informative article which pulls no punches. Anyone who thinks different is living in fairytale land.

Reply->

Carl • Sep 8, 2015 at 09:47

Does anyone recall the name Anwar Sadat? The same thing will happen to anyone who seriously tries to make peace with Israel.

Reply->

Dean • Sep 8, 2015 at 09:03

The world must look upon the "Palestinian" refugee situation as an example of how not to manage so-called refugees. UN, EU, Obama, Russia, Iran, Saudi, all of you need to take note. The world is just now waking up after a long sleep while ISIS, Boko Haram and other groups were slaughtering its people, especially minority groups and Christians. We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that the only way to deal with such events is to degrade and mock the ideology behind the carnage. Instead, as is the case with how we coddle Palestinians, we have raised them into angelic figures of perfection instead of the victims of wars launched by them and their corrupt countries and leadership. Unfortunately, we strive to satisfy those with bigoted and appetites and a mandate of conquest in the name of their distorted system of beliefs. Allowing them unfettered access to the West (notice how they do not appeal to nor flee to their own hellish countries of origin) is to open the doors to some people who will use the opportunity to make us like them and silence those who dare criticize the ethos that made them refugees to begin with.

Reply->