TIDA Gaza workshop on security and Palestinian reconciliation

A discussion of paper presented by Dr. Ibrahim Habeeb, researcher in security affairs

In the wake of the conclusion of the reconciliation agreement between the two Palestinian rival factions Fatah and Hamas, TIDA Gaza organized a workshop to discuss ideas and insights on the reform and integratio

n of Palestinian security apparatus in the post-reconciliation period. Dr. Ibrahim Habeeb, Palestinian researcher in security affairs, presented a paper mapping out challenges in the security sector that would pose problems to the reconciliation process. Retired and former senior PA security officers and current senior security officers took part in the discussion. Dr. Yazeed Sayegh took part in the discussion via Skype.

Dr. Eyad Sarraj, General Director of TIDA Gaza, opened the discussion  emphasizing the neutral approach of the organization in conducting respectful dialogue with the various Palestinian factions and encouraging them to discuss solutions and approaches to implement the reconciliation agreement. Dr. Sarraj considers the security dossier one of the most sensitive questions that concerns every Palestinian citizen. Dr. Sarraj pointed out that the aim of the workshop is to trigger dialogue and develop ideas to alleviate obstacles that may arise when addressing the security dossier.

Dr. Habeeb stressed on the necessity to brainstorm and examine ideas relating to the security dossier and identify problems that may lie ahead of the Palestinian interlocutors. He

emphasized that security reform that will take place under the reconciliation agreement will not only seek to address the divide within the Palestinian community in the wake of the events of 14 June 2007, but also will reshape the Palestinian security apparatus in the framework of a national security doctrine that responds to the highest interests of the Palestinian people.

Habeeb identified three problematic questions relating to the security dossier: lack of  goals of the security services, the problematic  duties of the security under the Oslo Accords that diverted its mandate. Habeeb classified those problematic questions into three types: political, administrative, security-related. These comprise the mandate and legal umbrella of the security apparatus, articulating the security doctrine and action plans of the security apparatus, and the paradox of state-building and liberation of Palestinian land in the existence of resistance to Israeli occupation.  Habeeb highlighted a number of relationships that must be determined between the security apparatus on one side and the public, Palestinian resistance movement, and Israeli occupation authorities. Habeeb also stressed the need to review the overlap of the mandates of Palestinian security services and to reexamine security liaison with the Israeli authorities.

Retired Major General Misbah Saqer mentioned a number of reform initiatives undertaken by the PA that fell short from realizing the desired goals. Saqer pointed out two problematic issues: lack of inter-Palestinian agreement on the question of security liaison with Israel and the action plan of the security committee to be formed under the reconciliation agreement. He also highlighted a number of endemic problems among which absence of internal and external control systems over the mandate and operation of Palestinian security apparatus, weak information and media of the security sector, the conditionality of aid to the security apparatus on the performance of the political process, and the competing interests of various Palestinian political elites.

Saqer suggested that a joint committee be formed to include chief staff of security services to prepare a working paper mapping key areas and priorities relating to security sector reform and it would be approved by the political leadership. Saqer called for a review of the mandate of the National Security Council and that security apparatus shall be subject to the authority of Palestinian cabinet rather than the PA president and to be held accountable before the PLC.

Major General Omar Ashour criticized the reconciliation agreement that continues to pursue mere Hamas-Fatah quota system and politicization of the security apparatus; “no security doctrine would be formulated in the existence of such quota system.” Ashour called for the implementation of Law of Service in the Palestinian Security Forces that bans political affiliation by its officers. Ashour heckled generalizing the accusations against the PA security services as serving the Israeli occupation; the political leadership holds the responsibility for endorsing such coo

peration.  Ashour acknowledged that few security services were connected to the Israeli occupation authorities, but distinguished between the types of security liaison with the Israelis; the PA security apparatus facilitated movement of Palestinian citizens and operation of civil utility and services crews in the territories. Ashour emphasized the strong correlation  between security doctrine and the PA strategy and the Oslo Accords that created security obligations on the PA.

Brigadier General Orabi Kaloub critiqued the declared operation of the security committee and the exclusion of former PA senior security officers in the reshaping of the security apparatus. Kaloub called for the participation of all parties in a series of workshops aimed at adopting a lessons-learned approach in articulating security reform plans. He relayed that the meanings of security doctrine remains unclear to the Palestinian security apparatus, and recommended that the Basic Law should be guiding and defining the security doctrine of the security apparatus. Kaloud shared his doubts about the feasibility of the phased process of integrating 3000 of PA security forces into Gaza’s security apparatus without scrutinizing the practicalities and requirements of the process.

Dr. Yezid Sayigh, Professor of Middle East Studies in the Department of War Studies at London’s King's College, relayed that the security sector dilemma lies in the political fiasco of the PA and difficulties of operating Palestinian security service in the existence of the Israeli occupation and Palestinian armed resistance. Sayigh illustrated the dilemma of the Palestinian security services to encounter Israeli military activities in order to protect Palestinian population, which will be branded by Israel as supporting terror and met with military retaliation against PA security services. Sayigh elaborated on the Gaza Strip experience under Hamas authority that separated between armed resistance and the operation of security services, where Palestinian police undertook and developed its internal security role away from politics by not taking part in armed resistance. Sayigh identified a number of problems facing the reintegration of PA and Gaza’s security services the most important among them the political affiliation of its members. He stressed the need for a clear legal framework that regulates the mandate of the security apparatus and allows oversight by a functioning PLC.

Major General Mahmoud Asfour emphasized the need for separating politics from security and safeguarding the impartiality of security apparatus. He relayed the need for compliance with Palestinian law and the oversight legislative authority.

Lieutenant Colonel Jamil A

bu Kashef prioritized the need for endorsing a political platform by the different Palestinian factions that sets the security functions of Palestinian security apparatus. Security services are law enforcement executive bodies that should be independent from political agendas. He called for a series of workshops to identify the training needs of the security services during the post reconciliation period.

Brigadier General Ahmad Saqallah stressed the need to address the overlap of mandates of the security services, and to end the practice of establishing security bodies and positions without justification.

Major General Ziad Ereef proposed that the security committee to consult retired security officers in the restructuring of security apparatus, and highlighted the need to form subcommittees to address a number of issues such as supplies, training, organization and personnel affairs. Ereef criticized the current approach to addressing the security dossier and the declared phased process of reintegration.  He also raised the issue of Pension scheme of the security services and the failure of the PA to pay end of service benefits.

Major General Saqer called for rectifying the deficiencies implied with the implementation of the Pension Law of security  forces that lead to significant vacancy in various security ranks.

Brigadier General Rayes called for a constitutional amendment to regulate the PLO forces, the intelligence service, internal security and ministry of the interior. He stressed that the PA should learn the lessons in managing the security services and that they should be subject to professional national and performance standards.

Major General Ashour called for a review of the Israeli-Palestinian security liaison committee and that it be subject to oversight to alleviate establishing subcommittees that are more lenient to Israeli demands.

Dr Sayigh addressed lack of discipline among security ranks and stressed the need for transparent laws that comprise disciplinary procedures. However, he called for a realistic approach to addressing security reform which in his view requires long-term investment.