Palestinians re-united, and it feels so good

Strenger than Fiction-Israel News – Haaretz Israeli News source.


Research shows that all successful peace processes at some point included the radical parties that had previously rejected any compromise. The classic example is, of course, the case of Northern Ireland. The IRA went through a gradual transformation from an organization committed to terror to a legitimate political party that was a central player in the subsequent peace agreement.

There have been indications that Hamas may be readier for an analogous change than their public statements show. Khaled Meshal has reportedly not excluded peace (rather than just a long-term truce) with Israel as a possibility.

Of course the rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas raises serious questions. Have Abbas and Fayyad used their current position of strength to force Hamas to cross their Rubicon: to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to renounce terrorism?

It is to be hoped that Fatah has clear indications for such a change. Abbas and Fayyad surely are aware that if Hamas does not change its official policy in the near future, Fatah may jeopardize their greatest achievement so far: the looming UN recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The international community is unlikely to grant such recognition if Hamas does not change its basic stance of rejecting Israel’s right to exist and forgo armed struggle.

If Hamas does make the historic move of accepting Israel’s existence, chances for Israel-Palestine peace will increase dramatically. Israel’s citizens have been wary of any peace deal for the simple reason that if Hamas does not see such an agreement as binding, Israel’s security will be severely compromised. Hamas might win again win Palestinian elections, and then Israel would be open to rocket attacks not only from Gaza but also from the West Bank. Hence, Israelis conclude, there is simply no use in a peace deal. An official change of policy by Hamas would dramatically change this constellation.

What about the Israeli side? I wish I could believe the reports that Netanyahu is about to make a grand and daring move in his planned speech to the U.S. congress; I wish I could believe that he is indeed about to offer the Palestinians statehood including East Jerusalem as their capital. If Netanyahu does do so, I will gladly retract many of the things I have written about his weakness of character; his inability to rise above small-time coalition maintenance and to see the grand historical picture.

So far, Netanyahu’s reaction has been quite predictable: he has lambasted the Fatah-Hamas rapprochement, and warned Fatah that the deal with Hamas will end the Israel-Palestine peace process. Since there is no such process anyway, I doubt that Fatah will take Netanyahu’s threat seriously, as it has nothing to lose. Netanyahu’s endless foot-dragging and bickering about settlements has only given the advantage to the Palestinians, whose credibility on the international scene has risen compared to that of the Netanyahu-Barak-Lieberman troika.

The Palestinians’ fate is now in their own hands. If Abbas’ gamble on reconciliation leads Hamas to modify its position, international recognition of a Palestinian state is likely to go ahead. This might further encourage Palestinians to stick to their moderate policies of the last few years, as they will now have a clear political horizon.


Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

4 comments on “Palestinians re-united, and it feels so good

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. The Economist purty much agrees with Strenger, Peaches, and Herb:|wwp|04-28-11|politics_this_week

    Israeli governments have viewed Fatah as a relatively moderate bunch with whom business may at a pinch be done, since it recognises Israel and espouses a two-state solution, whereas they tend to see Hamas as an irredeemable terror group that must be repeatedly clobbered, since it says Israel should be destroyed and a unitary Palestinian state established on the entire territory occupied by Israel. Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, says Mr Abbas’s PA must “choose between peace with Israel and peace with Hamas…Peace with both of them is impossible.”

    In the past Hosni Mubarak’s government in Egypt strongly favoured Fatah, since Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Egyptian authorities loathed. But Egypt’s new foreign minister, Nabil el-Araby, has made it clear that the new government will be strenuously even-handed. Among other things, it may well loosen the siege of Gaza, which Mr Mubarak’s government tacitly enforced.

    If—and it is still a big if—a Palestinian unity government does emerge, Hamas is likely to move towards an acceptance of the two-state deal. And Israel, amid a growing sense of isolation in the face of the winds of Arab change, may drastically have to alter its calculations.

  2. gee…..

    If Hamas does make the historic move of accepting Israel’s existence, chances for Israel-Palestine peace will increase dramatically.

    if the one party of the three that’s committed to war changes it’s mind, things will be less war-like.

    As there’s not evidence of such a change, what the deal does is block any peace deal by moving the PA into a deal with Hamas that moves the government away from the center and also imposes a requirement that the Pal government doesn’t undertake any negotiation for more than a year.

    hard to tell what the not-yet signed deal might mean.

  3. fuster wrote:

    hard to tell what the not-yet signed deal might mean.

    On this I agree with you. I would find the rest more persuasive if it was backed by a 1970s Top 40 hit.

    If something else, less obvious, is moving Hamas or comes to move Hamas, then at the very least the deal gives their moderates, and they do exist, a venue or path to meet Israelis coming from the other direction.

    I have no idea how likely it is, but it’s likelier, in both directions, than when the Israelis could claim absolutely that they had no potential partner, or at best a partner totally incapable of delivering. It also puts to the test all the MW types who’ve been claiming that Hamas had already come off their rejectionist maximalism.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins