LobeLog on Facebook   LobeLog on Facebook











Tajikistan: Saudi Revenge in Iran’s Backyard?

by Eldar Mamedov According to those who seek to contain Iran, it is supposedly...

Israel Fatah-Hamas

Published on April 25th, 2014 | by Mitchell Plitnick

5

Reconciliation and Peace: The Latest Hamas-Fatah Deal

by Mitchell Plitnick

The collapse of the U.S.-led talks between Israel and the Palestinians is now complete. In the wake of the latest deal between the Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, Israel has terminated the talks. The United States, true to its form, is backing the Israeli position. In so doing, we see yet another demonstration of why the so-called peace process, as it has been constructed for two decades, cannot possibly lead to a resolution of this long and vexing conflict.

U.S. angered and confused

As far as the U.S. position goes, one need look no further than the statement made by State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki. “It is hard to see how Israel will negotiate with a government that does not recognize its right to exist,” said Psaki yesterday. “The Palestinian reconciliation deal raises concerns and could complicate the efforts to extend peace talks.”

Well, as it turns out, it led to the suspension, at least for now, of the U.S. effort to extend the talks, an effort that any U.S. citizen, whatever their politics, should find embarrassing. But let’s examine that statement. Why, one wonders, would Psaki find it so “hard to see” how an Israeli government could negotiate with an unified Palestinian one? It is not Hamas Israel would be negotiating with, for a start, but a representative Palestinian Authority (PA). Indeed, one of Israel’s chief complaints has long been that even if they struck a deal with PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, it might not hold since he does not represent all of the Palestinian body politic as does Benjamin Netanyahu for the Israeli one.

More to the point, even if this deal represented a new and unified Palestinian government (which it does not, as I shall explain below), why must the parties involved in it all recognize Israel’s right to exist? After all, the current Israeli majority coalition includes two major parties — Likud and HaBayit HaYehudi — that explicitly reject the creation of a Palestinian state. In fact, unlike the Palestinians who would continue to be represented by Abbas, the Israeli Prime Minister belongs to one of those parties. Why does Psaki find it so easy to see how a Palestinian leadership could negotiate with such an Israeli government while finding it so hard to see how Israel could negotiate with a far milder version of the Palestinian side?

Beyond this, the real issue for the United States, from what I’ve been told, is that the Palestinians took the U.S. by surprise with this move. They seem to understand that this hasn’t really changed Abbas’ approach to talks, but they also know that it will complicate any further efforts at diplomacy because Congress has already made it clear, through years of legislation, that any government that includes Hamas will not be welcome.

Have the Palestinians finally moved away from dependence on the U.S.?

The deal that Hamas and Fatah signed may actually be different from the previous reconciliation deals, but the test of that will be in the one area the other two failed in: implementation. This deal is mostly an agreement to implement the previous agreements. There has never been any movement on those previous deals, so is there reason to expect there will be now?

Maybe there is. The previous deals were struck with Hamas leaders in exile, not the ones running what there is for them to run in the Gaza Strip. That always presented a serious impediment to implementation. This one was agreed to in Gaza itself, with the Gaza leadership. That might make a difference, but only if there is a genuine desire on both sides to implement it. Even then, Israel can certainly act to block any meaningful elections, which the agreement foresees in six months.

The timing of the agreement is certainly intentional. It is a response to Netanyahu’s ultimatum to the Palestinians to choose between more talks with Israel and reconciliation with Hamas. It is also a message to the United States. What that message is depends on where Abbas goes from here. If he moves to set up a technocrat, caretaker government pending elections, then he is probably planning to shift away from dependence on the United States. If, on the other hand, the agreement flounders like the prior ones, then Abbas is hoping that this move will, in relatively short order, prod the Obama administration to press Netanyahu for a settlement freeze. If that is the case, it is both a desperate and vain maneuver.

Israel’s reaction

The Netanyahu government reacted as one would expect, by cancelling the talks between Israel and the Palestinians. This means little, as the deadline for these talks was a mere six days away. Notably, however, Netanyahu’s attempt to frame the incident as Abbas choosing the “terrorist Hamas” over peace talks with Israel hasn’t been very successful yet. Despite U.S. fecklessness, its rebuke of Abbas fell well short of what Bibi wanted while the European Union openly welcomed the possibility of Palestinian reconciliation and urged the resumption of talks.

Netanyahu won’t change his tune, and, although the U.S. Congress has not yet chimed in, it is a sure bet that there will, in due course, be a bipartisan parade of congressional lawmakers supporting Netanyahu’s position that the Palestinians cannot be both unified and a party to negotiations. This, unsurprisingly, stands in contrast to much of the Israeli opposition. That the left-wing Meretz party condemned Netanyahu’s termination of talks was unsurprising, but the more confrontational tone of the centrist Labor Party was not certain until it happened.

Labor’s stance means there will be at least some pressure within Israel to re-engage in talks. Yet, in reality, little has changed. These talks were dead in the water anyway. The United States is irritated with Netanyahu’s brazen disinterest in any progress, and now they’re even more irritated with the Palestinians for trying to stir up the pot and make something happen. But, as always, it is only the Palestinian side that faces any substantive consequences from Washington.

And on the Palestinian side? Well, there is some potential for change here, but it will be a while before we know whether Abbas plans to take advantage of it. If he is not sincere about following through with this agreement, Hamas will never be party to such talks again until Abbas is out of power. At 79 years of age, Abbas may not be in power much longer in any case. And if he doesn’t follow through, aid from the West will continue unabated, the talks will remain in limbo and the status quo, including settlement expansion, will hold until something else breaks it.

But if Abbas does pursue implementation of this agreement, there will be some tough times ahead. Congress will cut off funds to the PA and Abbas will have to count on more revenue from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. EU funding is likely to continue, but to whom will the money go? Israel will probably hold the taxes that it is required to hand over to the Palestinians, but only until the PA appears on the brink of collapse, at which point they will release it. But the disruption will add to the economic decline the West Bank is experiencing, which will get worse if they have to depend on Saudi outlays rather than U.S. ones. The Saudis have a well-earned reputation among Palestinians for pledging a lot more aid than they deliver.

The PA may well collapse under this weight. Whether it does, or does not, if Abbas pursues reconciliation with Hamas, he will have to also bring his case for Palestinian freedom to the United Nations with all the tools at his disposal and forget the lost hope he placed in the United States. In the short-term, this will mean even more hardship for Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza as Israel will certainly take reprisal actions. But in the long run, it is their last, best hope for ending the occupation.

Palestinians attend a rally calling for national reconciliation between the rival Palestinian leading factions Hamas (in Gaza) and Fatah (in the West Bank), in Gaza City, March 11, 2011. Credit: UPI/Ismael Mohamad

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


5 Responses to Reconciliation and Peace: The Latest Hamas-Fatah Deal

Show Comments >



  1. avatar Farhang Jahanpour says:

    Thank you for this lucid account of the Palestinian predicament. As you point out, for a long time Israelis complained that they could not negotiate with the Palestinians because there was no united Palestinian partner to negotiate with, but now that there is a possibility of a united Palestinian team Israel complains that the PLO should choose between Israel and Hamas. The Palestinians are in a no-win situation.

    Secondly, the long drawn out “Peace Process” was already dead before the latest move by the Palestinians, and in the words of Secretary of Staff Kerry it went “poof” as the result of Israel not freeing Palestinian prisoners as promised and continuing with more settlement building.

    However, for anyone who is sincerely interested in a long-term peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas is a most welcome development because at last there will be a single Palestinian negotiating side. As part of the deal, Hamas has agreed to recognize Israel and to negotiate with it in earnest and to abide by the results of the peace deal. What else can they do?

    When in 2006 the Palestinians overwhelmingly voted for Hamas, immediately the Israeli and US governments branded them as terrorists and said that they would not talk to them until Hamas recognized the State of Israel. In response, Hamas’s elected Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said something to this effect: “Which Israel do you want me to recognize? Israel based on the UN Partition Plan; the one that was formed after armed Jewish groups seized areas not included in the Partition Plan; the one that came into being when the State of Israel was declared; the post 1967 war when Israel occupied vast tracts of Palestinian lands, including East Jerusalem; or the Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates?” That question has not yet been answered as Israel has never declared its borders.

    The Arab League and all the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, including Iran, have said that they would recognize Israel in its pre-1967 borders. As the more powerful side, Israel should set out its conditions for a realistic deal and declare her borders so that finally this longstanding conflict can be ended.

  2. avatar beijing says:

    Netanyahu will NEVER sign a deal with Palestinians and will use every vehicle possible to legitimize his intransigence. The US, in blind ignorance of this subterfuge, falls victim to placating Israel while exacting a toll on Palestinians once again. A farce perpetuated by the US Congress.

  3. avatar Norman says:

    Understanding this long go nowhere process, from the other side, which will never be finalized in any rational sense together, leads me to believe the only way forward, is for Abbas to retire after finalizing the agreement with Hamas, which will then open up the position of one voice for the Palestinians, who I might add, should continue the fight for redress in regards to the issues, in the ICC. What have they got to lose, if they can’t get out of the hole Israel has trapped them in, with the help of the U.S.?

  4. avatar James Canning says:

    More predictable stupidity on the part of the US! Condemning a unity deal between Hamas and Fatah, rather than praising it as the EU did.

  5. avatar James Canning says:

    @Beijing – – I suspect a few of those on Obama’s team who attack the unity deal between Hamas and Fatah, know that the attack is foolish.


About the Author

avatar

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.



Back to Top ↑
  • Named after veteran journalist Jim Lobe, LobeLog provides daily expert perspectives on US foreign policy toward the Middle East through investigative reports and analyses from Washington to Tehran and beyond. It became the first weblog to receive the Arthur Ross Award for Distinguished Reporting and Analysis of Foreign Affairs from the American Academy of Diplomacy in 2015.

  • Categories

  • Subscribe

    Enter your email address to subscribe to our site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Popular Posts

  • Comments Policy

    We value your opinion and encourage you to comment on our postings. To ensure a safe environment we will not publish comments that involve ad hominem attacks, racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory language, or anything that is written solely for the purpose of slandering a person or subject.

    Excessively long comments may not be published due to their length. All comments are moderated. LobeLog does not publish comments with links.

    Thanks for reading and we look forward to hearing from you!