Friday,20 October, 2017
Current issue | Issue 1195, (1-7 May 2014)
Friday,20 October, 2017
Issue 1195, (1-7 May 2014)

Ahram Weekly

The US should accept Palestinian unity

The Palestinian public are overwhelming for inter-Palestinian reconciliation, a fact Washington should not ignore, writes James Zogby

Al-Ahram Weekly

While Palestinians celebrated the reconciliation agreement signed between Fatah and Hamas, in Washington and Israel the reactions were reminiscent of the biblical “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.

American political leaders were dumbfounded by the news of the pact, terming it “a dark day”, “a setback for peace”, or “a serious complication”. Members of Congress, meanwhile, were uniform in their threats to withhold aid if the Palestinian Authority (PA) goes forward with the unity arrangement.

Israeli government reactions were predictably harsh in their criticism of the Palestinian move. Those on the far right, who never supported the “peace process” in the first place, and who had threatened to abandon the Netanyahu government if he signed any agreement with the Palestinians, saw the Fatah/ Hamas pact as justification to call for an immediate end to the peace negotiations. I detected more joy than anger in their overly heated pronouncements.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had undoubtedly the best line of the day, asking of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, “Does he want peace with Hamas or peace with Israel?” as if to suggest that “peace with Israel” was actually in the offing but for Abbas’s “disappointing” decision.

Putting aside all these displays of faux anger and misplaced regret, the Palestinians are right to celebrate. Reconciliation and national unity are not only good, in and of themselves, they are necessary if there is to be a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace.

First, the Palestinian people desperately want this unity in order to put their political house in order. Our polling consistently demonstrates this fact.

Increasingly frustrated with their divided leaderships’ failure or inability to bring an end to occupation, there has been a growing sense that unity would provide a solution. In a world that was out of control, healing their internal division was the one thing they felt they could control.

Unity, of course, is not magical and will not, by itself, produce independence. But the public’s instinct was nevertheless right in understanding that unity, on the right terms, would be essential for independence. In the face of continued existential challenges, the public has been demoralised by a divided squabbling leadership. Furthermore, Palestinians know that there is no future in the further dismemberment of their land into two captive Bantustans, one in the West Bank and the other in Gaza.

It is also important to understand the degree to which the leaderships of both the PA and Hamas were facing challenges to their legitimacy. During the past seven years, Hamas had made a mess of their rump “statelet” in Gaza. Their indiscriminate rocket fire and deplorable use of suicide bombers, which they bizarrely termed “resistance”, had only served to damage the Palestinian movement and image. At the same time, this behaviour and the insecurity it created among Israelis had empowered Israeli hardliners enabling them to impose cruel collective punishment that brought increased suffering to the entire Gaza Strip.

Hamas, reduced to badly managing an impoverished and trapped population, was facing growing dissatisfaction with both their ideology and their governance. Polls now show that this once popular Islamic movement has a significantly diminished support base.

The PA, thanks to Israeli ill will and intransigence, has fared no better. It made a strategic decision to pursue a non-violent path to liberation by cooperating with the US and negotiating with Israel. Their reward: they became financially dependent on the US and Israel; they were repeatedly humiliated by aggressive and acquisitive Israeli settlement expansion; and they continued to be subject to Israel’s efforts to impose its will on their every move. As a result, the Palestinian public had become increasingly cynical, despairing of the possibility of peace.

And so in the face of a new breakdown in negotiations, Israel’s refusal to deliver on a promised release of prisoners, and the announcement of yet another expansion of settlements, Palestinians turned instead to heal their divided polity.  

From what we know of the terms of the Fatah/ Hamas pact, it provides for the establishment of a national unity government of technocrats. This government will serve for several months preparing for national elections. The agreement also empowers President Abbas to continue negotiations and endorses his leadership in seeking a two-state solution that provides for peace between Israel and an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in East Jerusalem.

While Israel has flat out rejected the reconciliation, the success of this effort to establish unity will depend on the US response. Up until now, the US has not formally rejected the agreement. It would be a fatal error if, without finding out the exact terms of the reconciliation pact, the US were to reject it out of hand and punish the PA. Likewise, it would be an enormous error if the US were to force President Abbas to turn his back on the pact. This has happened before.

At this point, such a move would not be accepted by the Palestinian public and would severely compromise the PA leadership.

If, as senior Palestinian spokesmen affirm, the terms of the agreement comply with the well-known Quartet conditions, the US would be well advised to be supportive of the effort and insist that Israel continue negotiations with a now-strengthened Abbas


The writer is president of the Arab American Institute.

add comment

  
 
 
  • follow us on