What is the most dangerous outcome of the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting between the Israeli and Palestinian sides?

The Secretary-General of the Palestinian National Initiative, Mustafa Barghouti, said that he does not see in the five-year Sharm el-Sheikh meeting different outputs from what was previously announced after the Aqaba meeting in Jordan, as the agreement was related to security issues without discussing the substance of the matter.

He explained – in his speech to the program "Beyond the News" (2023/3/19) – that the meeting did not address political issues, foremost of which is the existence and continuation of the Israeli occupation, and the apartheid regime imposed by the occupation, in addition to the massacres it commits against the Palestinian people.

This came against the backdrop of the final communiqué issued by the five-year meeting in the Egyptian city of Sharm el-Sheikh calling for confidence-building between Israelis and Palestinians, noting that the Palestinian Authority is the one carrying out security tasks in Area A, and stressing that the historical status of the holy sites in Jerusalem will not be affected.

The meeting, which was sponsored by Egypt, Jordan and the United States, came as a continuation of a previous meeting held on February 26 in the Jordanian city of Aqaba between Israelis and Palestinians, which discussed reaching a calm between the two sides, reinforced by facts on the ground, and stopping the wave of tension and escalating confrontations since the beginning of 2023 in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

It's surprising.

Barghouti expressed his surprise at the PA's return to such meetings after announcing the suspension of security coordination, as well as its approval of the wording of the statement that talked about stopping talk of establishing settlement units for the next 4 months, which implies turning a blind eye to the 13 settlements and 10,<> settlement units recently approved by Israel.

He pointed out that talking about mechanisms to end violence means equality between the two parties, expressing his fear that this will push the Palestinian Authority to put in place mechanisms to suppress freedom of opinion and expression, stop resistance, and try to drag the Palestinian side into an internal conflict at a time when all Palestinians are subjected to massacres by the occupation forces and settlers.

Barghouti pointed out that this meeting, which was held in light of an unprecedented division witnessed by the government of the fascist occupation state, and internal and external isolation, came as a lifeline for it, stressing that it will have no impact on the ground, as Israel will not allow leaving Area A, and will continue its usual violations, through incursions similar to what happened previously.

Instead of sitting with a "fascist authority", the PA should have pushed for the unification of the Palestinian ranks and the Palestinian forces, especially after it tried the negotiation approach and Oslo for 30 years without achieving any significant success.

Achievement and progress

On the other hand, Richard Goodstein, former special envoy of US President Bill Clinton for the Middle East, said that Washington considers the meeting of the two parties and their issuance as a document of achievement and progress, pointing out that no one would have expected that by the end of March the two sides could reach an agreement, in light of the increasing tension in the region.

He added – in his speech to the program "Beyond the News" – that this does not mean sufficiency with this "first step", as the United States, according to his speech, is still seeking to reach a two-state solution, which does not seem to be acceptable to both sides.

In this context, he explained that the two-state solution is no longer an acceptable option for many Israelis, including the current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who believes that he pretends to accept it, and that many Palestinians want a state with which they do not accept the establishment of an Israeli state next to it.

He argued that this agreement was the result of pressure exerted by Washington on both sides, although it did not appear in this way, especially with regard to the Israeli side, justifying this by saying that it is wise to give Netanyahu a margin of maneuver to reach the result that the United States wants to achieve without embarrassing him.

The Sharm el-Sheikh statement affirmed the commitment of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to all previous agreements between them, and its outputs indicated that the two sides agreed to develop a mechanism to reduce violence and incitement and take the necessary measures to open political horizons.