The last time Fatah held a party congress, Seinfeld was in the first month of an uncertain future. Today, the party billed as Israel's peace partner kicked off its confab in Bethlehem.
Here are six reasons I'm concerned about this gathering.
1. Discredited figures are entrenching themselves.
According to The Independent:
There has thus far been no accountability in Fatah. Indeed, rather than resign, the people responsible for its debacles are now seeking promotions. Nabil Amr, an Abbas ally and a one-time Arafat associate who was trounced by a Hamas candidate in parliamentary elections for the Hebron district, is trying to nevertheless move up from the revolutionary council to the central committee.
Mohammed Dahlan, whose security forces were routed by Hamas fighters in Gaza, has his sights on the top body.
And Rawhi Fattouh, a former speaker of parliament who caused embarrassment last year when Israeli border inspectors found 3,000 contraband mobile phones in his car, is also a candidate.
Without naming names, Musa Fawaz, a delegate from Lebanon, said that the success of discredited figures in these leadership elections would sound a death knell for Fatah.
2. The party's taking an inexplicably hardline position.
One leading official doesn't want Arab states to begin normalizing relations with Israel — a move requested by President Obama to give peace some momentum. The Daily Telegraph explains why:
"Normalisation of Israel's ties with Arab countries before the occupation ends in the Palestinian areas is the last thing that the Palestinians should have to experience," said Abu El-Izz Dajani, a former PLO ambassador who is running for a post in the Fatah leadership. "It is as dangerous as the Nakba, as dangerous as the 1967 seizure of the West Bank and Jerusalem."
3. Fatah's program leaves open the option of "armed struggle."
Reuters adds that Mahmoud Abbas insists on this.
4. Fatah rejects Israel as a Jewish state.
Moreover, Rafik Natsheh, a member of the party's central committee recently said that Fatah never will, and has never asked Hamas to recognize Israel either.
5. Decisions made at this gathering could set the stage for another intifada.
I can't dismiss Avi Dichter's concerns:
"Fatah's statements are clearing the way to what may eventually be the third intifada," he said. "Once you say that the fight will go on by all means necessary – anyone in their right mind understands that spells an armed conflict . . . .
"What I find particularly disturbing is that it's the moderates that plan to have the convention vote on an article titled 'continuing the fight against Israel by all means necessary.' Sixteen years after the Oslo Accords, it's Fatah's way of saying they see an armed conflict as a legitimate way to conduct dialogue with Israel.
6. Despite the literally obvious signs, some reporters don't get it.
Case in point is AP's Mohammed Daraghmeh, who wrote:
A banner in the conference call showed a boy in a military uniform and a Kalashnikov assault rifle, with the slogan, "Resistance is a legitimate right of our people."
However, the political program presented this week for convention approval marginalizes that idea, and instead emphasizes negotiations and civil disobedience as the path to statehood.
Missed opportunities for peace can be very dangerous, so I'm not dismissing the significance of what's happening in Bethlehem. But 20 years from now, Seinfeld reruns will probably have more relevance than Fatah.
