The present situation in the Palestinian territories has placed me in a position of objection par excellence as I oppose everything that is taking place in Palestinian politics today. 

I object to the Hamas-staged coup in the Gaza Strip, as I object more to the attempts at isolating this faction. I object the two governments of Ismail Hanyia and Salam Fayad until they reach an agreement. I object to the corruption of Fatah and then I object to the intimacy prevailing in the meeting of Abou Mazen and Ehud Olmert.
 
Since I am not a party and I can be more objective than the supporters of this or that party, I find that both parties are wrong. Hamas will not be able to monopolize power and the authorities, in order to preserve their national feature, must not attempt at isolating Hamas and will not succeed in doing so. Then, I do not want Ismail Hanyia to become the first Prime Minister coming from Hamas ranks and the last prime minister. Nor do I want Salam Fayad to fail after he had been the best minister and the most successful minister in consecutive Palestinian governments.

Today talks are focusing on bilateral encounters and general meetings as a prelude to a conference to be held in November and that President Bush called for to come up with a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. We have heard that Abou Mazen and Olmert tackled major issues, that the Americans are behind the two men, and that there is a peace plan carrying the names of Ehud Olmert and Shimon Peres. According to the plan, Israel has to withdraw from the entire West Bank except for the settlement blocs, and the Palestinians will be given Israeli land equivalent to the area of the entire West Bank.

I see the chances of success in the November congress very slim. They reflect the difference in potential between George Herbert Bush who sponsored the Madrid Conference in 1991 and his son George W. Bush who was going to fail in dealing with the Palestinian issue alone so he added to it the Iraqi issue. As a result the chances of success are beyond the scope of reality and logic.

I object to the upcoming conference not just because I expect it to fail, but because I have a feeling the objective behind it is not the solution to a chronic conflict and the creation of a Palestinian state. It is rather the fulfillment of either of two other objectives, namely dealing a blow to Hamas or to Syria.

I do not have in Hamas cousins I need to defend and I have criticized much of this faction's conduct despite my familiarity with the leadership. Nevertheless, only an obstinate person or an Israeli will think that Hamas today represents the Palestinians more than any other faction or party does. Attempts at isolating it mean isolating the Palestinians from their cause, which will by no means succeed. In the event the Palestinian authorities participate in those attempts as a party, the conflict will be transformed into an inter- Palestinian one and the children of the same cause will kill each other.  

I have never trusted Israeli policies and I have the same feelings toward the present American administration, though I consider it is more likely that President Bush acts out of ignorance whereas Foreign Minister Condoleezza Rice is really seeking a solution.

If the target is Hamas, not peace, then it is Syria.

The weakness of the Olmert government does not predispose it to seek peace; it rather makes it threatening like an injured animal. It may reply to the accumulated failure by turning the tables on its enemies through a war that guarantees the solidarity of the Israelis as long as it lasts. The war is also supposed to guarantee the support of the American administration, maybe with an enthusiasm that is greater than Israel's enthusiasm for the war. If we overlook the content of American and Israeli news, we find out that it all converges on war.

The American administration accuses Syria of producing large amounts of chemical and biological weapons. Such is the type of accusations made against Iraq on the eve of the illegal war on it, and for the same reason. Israel says that Hizbullah has rebuilt its military force after last summer's war, that it possesses more than the three thousand rockets it had launched on northern Israel, that among the new rockets some can reach the Israeli inland, and that arms smuggling through Syria is still going on.

At the same time, official and media sources in Israel say that the government is short on defending Tel Aviv and Jerusalem against a missile attack and the building of shelters is going very slowly.

Newspapers have also published reports released by Israeli security sources, which say that Syria is getting ready for war. It has boosted its forces facing Israel in the Golan Heights, moved Scud missiles and built new fortifications. When Israel starts saying that Syria is making war preparations, this means it is itself also getting ready for war. This issue will definitely pacify the soldiers' insubordination displayed by those who refused to evacuate settlers from the city of Al-Khalil.  

Maybe Israel intends to take anticipatory measures. It seems that a war with Syria means opening two new fronts on Israel's borders: north against Hizbullah and south against Hamas.  Hence its need to move before its enemies enhance their power. In the meantime, the discussion of a new peace conference has intensified and I fear, for the reasons mentioned above, that it will be a mere camouflage. I can feel a little reassured if I see practical steps to bring about a reconciliation  between Hamas and Fatah and the restoration of the national unity government instead of conspiring against Hamas. This does not only represent my opinion, but also the positions of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, in addition to that of Russian which returning to the Middle East.