Gaza Peace Talks: Hamas’ Dilemma

Hamas-Fatah

by Mitchell Plitnick

Egypt’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood continues on the diplomatic front with the opening of two sets of talks this week in Cairo. One set will have Egypt brokering discussions with Fatah and Hamas on the future of governance in the Gaza Strip, while the other will see Egyptian and Palestinian Authority (PA) representatives shuttling between Hamas and an Israeli delegation.

Although Egypt brokered the ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel that ended 50 days of rockets flying out of Gaza and Israel, which devastated the tiny strip, it cannot have escaped Hamas’ notice that Egypt has an agenda of its own—and it is shared with just about every other party involved.

A sign of what Hamas will face was displayed this weekend, as UN Middle East envoy Robert Serry worked on achieving an agreement for 250-500 international observers to monitor reconstruction projects in Gaza. The purpose of the monitors would be to ensure that all materials brought into Gaza, and all the work done with them, is exclusively used to rebuild the homes, infrastructure and public buildings that were destroyed by Israel’s recent onslaught. The UN would be working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to guarantee that outcome.

Hamas is facing the consequences of the unity deal it agreed to back in April. At that time, Hamas was losing popularity in Gaza, was seeing what support it had in the Arab world evaporating, and found itself unable to pay civic employees. But the events of the summer changed things, at least for the time being.

Now Hamas is riding a wave of popularity after facing Israeli bombardment again and coming out battered but not broken. Qatar, whose support remains dubious, acted more supportive during the fighting. And, Hamas thought, the ceasefire arrangement would get the understandably disgruntled and desperate workers see some kind of paycheck. With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas having angered many Palestinians by wavering sharply between public condemnations of the Israeli onslaught and continued cooperation with Israeli security in the West Bank, Hamas had reason to reconsider the unity agreement.

But it accepted the agreement, which now seems like a trap. Abbas is insisting that the unity government be allowed to take over the administration of Gaza. Hamas is surely aware that in that event, the PA would have to embark on a campaign to control the violence in Gaza as it did with the West Bank. In other words, even without agreeing to disarm Gaza—an Israeli demand—the PA would, in fact, do just that. And, with no elections currently scheduled, Hamas could find itself completely marginalized.

This is, without a doubt, exactly what Egypt wants. Certainly the leadership knows that any attempt to disarm Hamas and the other armed factions in Gaza would be met with resistance. But Hamas, at least, is still substantially weakened after the battle with Israel. Egypt might reasonably expect that this fact will lead to a different outcome than the 2007 battle between Fatah and Hamas, which ended in a decisive Hamas victory. Moreover, Abbas has very little legitimacy in Gaza, but if he becomes the Palestinian face of reconstruction and of a marked improvement in the lives of the people there, it would be enough to slowly drain more support from Hamas.

It may well be that, if successful, Egypt would press Israel to end its blockade of Gaza and even allow the construction of an airport and seaport there. This would create a comparative economic boom in the beleaguered Gaza Strip and could keep things calm in the region for an extended period. For Israel, the downside would be increased diplomatic pressure to get back to serious negotiations about a two-state solution. That is exactly what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu feared when the Palestinians struck the unity accord, and the reason why he manipulated the murder of three young Israelis to lead to a much broader attack on Hamas.

But Netanyahu also knows that if there is one thing Israel excels at it’s negotiating endlessly with no results. He also knows that Israel’s behavior in Gaza angered many leaders around the world, particularly with the repeated attacks on UN facilities and the blatant targeting of civilians. Israel’s denials and claims of accidental actions have been greeted with skepticism at best, even in Washington (everywhere, that is, with the obvious exception of the halls of Congress). Israel’s position is not nearly as strong as Netanyahu thought it would be when the fighting stopped. Therefore, it may be that Netanyahu will accept the Palestinian unity government if it can marginalize Hamas.

Egypt certainly will work hard to convince Netanyahu to do so. Netanyahu reaps some benefits from having Hamas, which maintains some degree of control over Gaza but is a frightening specter to Israelis. Israel also enjoys having the Palestinian body politic split between Gaza and the West Bank.

But Egypt, under its new-old regime headed by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, is quite keen to wipe out what they see as the last vestige of Muslim Brotherhood political power in the region. Egypt gets no benefit from the Palestinian split, and in fact would probably prefer to see the PA under Abbas assume control of Gaza to sideline Hamas. The hope would be that such a PA would work with Egypt to strangle ties between Gaza and militant groups in the Sinai, enabling some indirect assistance in that endeavor from Israel.

But most of all, Sisi wants to wipe out Hamas as a player in the region. That’s not necessarily what Israel wants. But even if the PA once again controls Gaza, and the strip and the West Bank become one territorial unit again, that is a far cry from the circumstances that would create real pressure on Israel to end its occupation.

The UN simply wants to rebuild Gaza, although it’s not very happy with Hamas either, after the group was caught using UN facilities to store weapons. Still, Robert Serry is likely inclined to focus on humanitarian relief rather than regional politics. But in order to do that, it needs to work to ensure that Hamas is not involved in that reconstruction.

Hamas knows all of this, but cannot simply refuse to go to these talks just because they’re in Cairo. Without these negotiations, international relief will not come into Gaza. Egypt has them in a difficult spot.

But Hamas also must be expected to abide by the unity agreement it signed. It knew this was part of it, and if circumstances have made that agreement less palatable, that is the risk it took. What it needs to do now is press for elections as soon as possible, under the terms of that same unity agreement.

By the time such elections could be held, some of the luster will have come off of Hamas’ steadfastness over the summer. And, if it does agree to allow the PA to take over Gaza again, it will also likely be abdicating its position as the leading revolutionary group among Palestinians. From that point on, other factions will be raising weapons against Israel and, quite likely, the PA as well.

Egypt certainly believes that this will eventually lead to Hamas’ disappearance. More sober minds in Israel probably fear that this will strengthen more radical groups in the Palestinian Territories, and they are probably correct.

But in the last analysis, the Palestinians must be unified. In that future, Gaza can be helped and the Palestinians can at least potentially have a representative leadership. The pitfalls are many, and the motives of the various players are dubious to say the least. But the alternatives are all far less likely to produce progress.

Photo: The Prime Minister of Gaza Ismail Haniya (right), with Fatah official Azzam Al-Ahmad (middle), and Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzoq at the April 22, 2014 meeting to sign the Fatah-Hamas unity deal. Credit: Khaled Alashqar/IPS.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
avatar

Mitchell Plitnick

Mitchell Plitnick is former vice president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. He is the former director of the US Office of B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, and was previously the director of education and policy for Jewish Voice for Peace. He is a widely published and respected policy analyst. Born in New York City, raised an Orthodox Jew and educated in Yeshiva, Mitchell grew up in an extremist environment that passionately supported the radical Israeli settler movement. His writing has appeared in the Jordan Times, Israel Insider, UN Observer, Middle East Report, Global Dialogue, San Francisco Chronicle, Die Blaetter Fuer Deutsche Und Internationale Politik, Outlook, and in a regular column for a time in Tikkun Magazine. He has been interviewed by various outlets including PBS News Hour, the O’Reilly Factor and CNBC Asia. Plitnick graduated with honors from UC Berkeley in Middle Eastern Studies and wrote his thesis on Israeli and Jewish historiography and earned his Masters Degree from the University of Maryland, College Park's School of Public Policy.

4 Comments

  1. How many times does it take to repeat that arming every faction with Nuclear bombs, which includes the reality of mutual destruction to who ever uses them first, if not perhaps a large swath of the M.E. Arab world going up in flames, This nonsense has been going on ever since the invasion of Palestine, and I’m sorry if it bothers anyone, but it’s the truth. Of course, nobody cares or they would defuse the situation before that happens. On the other hand, maybe that would be the best thing to happen to the present human race, eliminate the genetic chain that produces this behavior, or enforce the laws on all sides.

    I might add this, now that Saudi Arabia, who is responsible for creating and financing the present terrorists in vogue in conjunction with the U.S. declared that they are going to build nuclear reactors along with some other M.E. Arab countries, on an accelerated basis. Does this mean that Israel is going to bomb the sights as they have done in the past?

    Another thing, anyone of those in the know or who think they know, will it be before another group takes over in any one of the Arab countries, like what’s taking place today in Iraq? And what happens if that same action takes place in Israel with the extreme right-wing fanatics taking over, then using the Nuclear bombs around the M.E?

  2. I don’t think Egypt is keen about eliminating the Moslem Brotherhood and Hamas totally. They know that even more extremist groups may appear if the MB disappears, especially with Saudi Arabia’s deep involvement in Egypt, The aim of Egypt seems to “tame” the Moslem Brotherhood both in Egypt and in Gaza and use them as a guard against the Wahhabi nefarious influence that is creeping in Egypt and in the region. This is also Qatar’s and Iran’s policy in the region. They have long decided that the Moslem Brotherhood is the only acceptable moderate Sunni that can take a role in Arab governments as long as they are tamed and purified from any sectarianism and ambition of ruling alone ( as it was the case with Morsi). They know that any over-westernized ruler will be enslaved to the West. They thus prefer a to give a significant role to the Moslem Brotherhood to prevent that to happen.
    We can see that policy unravelling in Yemen: Shias and Moslem Brotherhood may share power and exclude Saudi Arabia.
    Early signs are showing that Egypt is recognizing that it needs to manage and not eliminate the Moslem Brotherhood in order to preserve peace and national unity. So it is moving slowly despite Saudi Arabia’s opposition. Yet, for Saudi Arabia now under the threat of the home-bred ISIS, they may find the Moslem Brotherhood a less threatening and more manageable option.
    Gaza’s Hamas destiny is therefore linked to Egypt’s progress in their dealing with the Moslem Brotherhood.

  3. It seems to me that that is quite clear in the terminology used, but if clarification is required, then yes, I will clarify that what was being referred to was Netanyahu’s manipulation of a criminal act carried out entirely by others.

  4. I hope you will confirm that you meant to say “manipulated the facts concerning the murder of three young Israelis.” There is no evidence to indicate that Netanyahu was responsible for those murders, except (possibly) in the most indirect sense.

Comments are closed.