In this article Suren Pillay* discusses the fragmentation of Palestine and argues for ‘critical in solidarity’ engagement, and the reconciliation between Hamas and the PLO.
Us undermines democracy
There are two governments in Palestine, but no Palestinian state. The Unites States (US) policy for Palestine is to spread democracy by rejecting and undermining people’s democracy. In 2006, despite US-backed elections, Hamas won 76 of the 132 seats in the legislative assembly of the Palestine Authority (PA), while Fatah won 43 seats. The outcome of the election was not accepted by the West. The US immediately cut all ties and pressurised the European Union (EU) and other governments to do the same. All international funding to the Palestinian Authority was suspended, effectively imposing a starvation policy on the Palestinian population.
hamas/fatah
The Hamas-led government of Ismail Haniyeh was never recognised by Israel, the US or the EU. Hamas is classified as an Islamic terrorist organisation; its founding charter does not recognise the state of Israel or the Oslo accords. These are the three conditions used to disqualify it. Hamas has however, repeatedly stated its willingness to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, this reflects recognition of Israel, even if this is not stated directly.
The Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah faction is acceptable since it belongs to the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) which recognises Israel’s right to exist, and is seen as a ‘secular ’ organisation. During the Cold War, the US identified and rejected its political enemies as ‘Communists’. Today, to be labeled ‘Islamist’ serves the same purpose: no further questions are necessary. The assumptions are that everyone knows what ’Islamist’ means, and that ‘Islamists’ all share the same views regardless of national or local contexts. This is the politics of ‘naming’.
hamas controls gaza
In March 2007, with growing signs of a civil war between Fatah and Hamas supporters, a Saudi- brokered peace agreement put an end to the hostilities and outlined a power-sharing interim agreement in a National Unity government. However, in June 2007, Hamas forces overran thePA in Gaza. President Abbas of Fatah responded by suspending the Cabinet, firing Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, and replacing him with Salam Fayyad, an ex World Bank employee, considered politically independent and elected on the ticket of the Third Way Party, led by Hanan Ashrawi.
divide & rule
According to Israeli activist and scholar, Uri Avnery, the current stalemate is a result of the plan hatched by Ariel Sharon: to isolate the Gaza strip and allow Hamas to lead it, to transform the West Bank into a series of isolated cantons led by Fatah, and to ensure that both territories remain under the security control of the Israeli military. Fragmented and divided, the Palestinians would be unable
to demand a Palestinian state nor negotiate with unity. It presumes that the Olso Peace Accords,
‘The Roadmap’, and other stated commitments to a
‘peace process’, were not undertaken by the Israelis to reach an agreement that was just or fair for all parties, least of all the Palestinians.
Gaza and the West Bank remain disconnected although they are just 90 minutes apart. The Wall itself slices up the West Bank into pieces, separating Palestinians from each other and their land. In exchange for breaking ties with Hamas, President Abbas was rewarded with financial and military
aid from the US for the West Bank, and bi-weekly meetings with Ehud Olmert, Israeli Prime Minister. The assumption is that Hamas will lose popularity if the people of the Gaza Strip are isolated and starved.
On the other hand, if the West Bank is rewarded financially, politically and militarily, the moderate Abbas leadership is expected to comply with the wishes of the US and Israel against the wishes of the Palestinian people. At the White House, Elliot Abrahams welcomed a group of Palestinian
Some right wing Fatah members, including the Presidential Guards, were trained in camps in Jericho and Ramallah to fight Hamas. Dahlan, a right wing member of Fatah, which hijacked the party, planned a coup (takeover) against the democratically elected Hamas government. Hence Hamas’ actions in June 2007 were intended to prevent this coup, and resulted in its control over the Gaza Strip.
a doomed strategy?
The strategy of dislodging Hamas by isolating and impoverishing Gaza, whilst supporting Abbas and Fatah on the West Bank, is likely to backfire for
a number of reasons. Firstly, it fails to grasp the reasons for the support Hamas enjoys. According to Robert Fisk, ‘Palestinians didn’t vote for Hamas because they wanted an Islamic Republic, but because they were tired of the corruption
of Mr. Abbas’ Fatah and the rotten nature of the Palestinian Authority’.
By undermining Hamas but supporting Fatah, a party widely perceived to be corrupt and inefficient, support for Hamas is likely to increase. Secondly, by celebrating Mr. Abbas and Fatah, the Bush administration, along with the ‘Quartet, are likely to further erode Fatah’s standing as a legitimate voice of Palestinian national aspirations in the occupied territories, making explicit his role as their proxy. Thirdly, by undermining Hamas as a whole, the position of elements within Hamas that favour the democratic process and negotiated settlements, are undermined. In government Hamas has shown itself pragmatic rather than orthodox. Within the limited means at its disposal in Gaza it has shown itself ethical and efficient. Islamic Sharia law is not enforced, there is no enforcement of the veil, nor compulsion to attend mosque, and relative security and order prevails.
On the question of the recognition of Israel, Mousa Abu Marzook, the deputy head of the Political Bureau of Hamas pointed out, ‘I, for one, do not trouble myself over “recognising” Israel’s right to exist. Israel does exist. The question however, is whether a state has an absolute right
be respected in principle, regardless of whether
one supports the policies of the winning party. The legality of the current Fatah dominated PA is in serious doubt when considered within the Basic Principles which govern it. Going along with the current strategy of the US, the Quartet and Israel would be to endorse an undemocratic and illegal process, and to support a politically problematic strategy that does not recognise the facts on the ground nor work towards a lasting peace.
The general position to be cultivated may
be one of being critical in solidarity, allowing for disagreement with potential Islamist and exclusivist tendencies whilst engaging them. Maybe the South African government should be working towards reconciling Hamas and Fatah, whilst helping to build an alternative coalition under the supervision of the Arab League and the UN, with diplomatic pressure from China, Russia, Brazil, India and the African Union. There are shifts within the EU already about engaging with Hamas: Germany, France, Italy, and a government commission in Britain, have called for dialogue between Fatah and Hamas.
hamas & Plo
Hamas will have to be a part of any lasting solution for peace as Palestinians see it as the only party willing to engage in the politics of resistance against occupation and dispossession. It will however have to join the PLO and become subject to a broader Palestinian consensus. Moreover, the increasingly vocal calls from Palestinians for the reform of the PLO, in which Fatah remains the dominant political party, cannot be ignored. Palestinian author Ramzy Baroud, notes that ‘Hamas’s isolation will likely strengthen the more radical view amongst its members, which will make it more difficult to find common ground in the future’. Demonising Hamas only further enhances its credibility in the eyes of many Palestinians fed up with the corruption and ineffectiveness of Fatah.
*Suren Pillay lectures in Political Studies at UWC, & is research specialist at HSRC. He writes in his personal capacity.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.