Results of the Sharm El-Sheikh meeting. Authority in the face of resistance
Specialists in political affairs believe that the results of the security meeting held in the Egyptian city of Sharm el-Sheikh yesterday push the Palestinian Authority to clash with the resistance in the occupied West Bank, considering that the authority has accepted the equality of the Palestinian victim with the Israeli executioner.
Among the most prominent provisions of the final statement issued by the five-party meeting that took place on Sunday, with the participation of the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli occupation, the United States, Egypt and Jordan, is “achieving calm on the ground and preventing further violence.”
The statement confirmed the work of the Authority and the entity together to enable the Authority to assume security responsibilities in Area A in the West Bank and to work significantly to strengthen the financial position of the Authority.
The authority and Israel also agreed to develop a mechanism to address violence, incitement, statements, and moves that may cause the situation to flare up.
‘Settlement is impossible’
Writer and political analyst Talal Okal says: “Opening prospects for finding a political solution, if not impossible, is almost impossible in light of the existence of Israeli governments whose program of killing and displacement, especially the current government.”
Okal affirmed, to the “GazaPress” agency, that “Israel” has destroyed all paths leading to a settlement, adding that it “is not looking for settlements or a two-state solution, but rather is moving towards the policy of annexing the West Bank and Jerusalem.”
Okal describes the meeting as a “lie,” pointing out that “the political process is running at a dead end, and everything that is being talked about to the contrary is a dust in the eyes and false promises from the Americans.”
Regarding what was stipulated in the final statement of the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting, “Israel and the PA work together to support the PA in carrying out security responsibilities in Area (A) in the West Bank,” Okal explains that this means “activating security coordination and trying to enable the PA in armed resistance in the West Bank.”
He believes that the aim of this is to push the authority to clash with the resistance and control the action of the factions, adding, “But this goal will not succeed for two reasons. The first is that the occupation is responsible for the escalation, and the second is that the authority does not have a decision or a word on the resistance fighters.”
Okal clarifies that “this is a deviation from the real assessment of the situation in the West Bank, in which Israel bears exclusive responsibility and no responsibility in partnership with the PA or others.”