This week Fatah and Hamas signed an agreement to form a united government, or what has been the called a big step towards the recognition of a Palestinian State.
Doubtful...
There have been many big obstacles in the way of peace and a two-state solution (settlements, rocket attacks, etc), but none is so insurmountable as the inherent and violence-fueled separation between Fatah and Hamas. But, here are some reasons why this "paper-tiger" will never hold up:
1. Hamas is a terrorist organization.
The necessary "other-side" of the negotiation table (Israel and the US) have identified Hamas as a terrorist organization.
2. Hamas refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist.
An LATimes article: "Fatah leader say it doesn't matter if Hamas does not recognize Israel as long as the government does." This quote is an explicit recognition that a united Fatah-Hamas government will be inherently divided over the most important issue - the Peace Process. In 2007, a united government collapsed because the US, Israel and a host of other nations refused to recognize it because Hamas did not accept Israel's right to exist. If a functional government is to be formed form the two warring factions, then it must recognize that a two-state solution only works when one state gives legitimacy to the other. No Israel, no Palestine.
3. Recognition of a country by the UN does not mean it can be stable enough to be independent
Those who refer to Israel going to the UN as a mirror to Hamas-Fatah using the same route are running down a slippery slope. Israel, while facing outside forces that vowed to destroy it, was united in its cause. This unity is a driving force behind its innovative power and its survivability. Hamas and Fatah are deeply divided, and a UN recognition will not persuade Hamas to compromise on its extremism. A Palestinian state will resemble the government of Lebanon, which is in constant civil war with Hezbollah and a breeding ground for international terrorism.
4. A two-state solution cannot exist with a dependent state
If we were to accept the idea that the Palestinian State is its own, independent state, then we need to expand the definition of what "independent" means:
-If it cannot prevent extremism from within its borders from spilling out into Israel, then it cannot be an independent state
-If it depends on tax revenues from Israel for construction and aide, then it cannot be an independent state
-If a government of two warring factions cannot reconcile a peace agreement with their neighbor, then it cannot represent an independent state.
-When groups within the government call for using "every method of resistance" against its neighbor, then it cannot represent an independent state.
5. All parties must recognize Israel's right to defend itself
We root for the underdog. I understand that. But, this isn't South Africa resisting apartheid, Egyptians toppling Mubarak or Libya fighting Qaddafi. If these two factions want to create a stable state, they must recognize the right of their neighbor to defend against outside forces. Israel is not purposefully oppressing Arabs from the area because they believe in some sort of inherent inequality.
Unfortunately, the most visible elements of the dynamic between Fatah-Hamas and Israel is that of Israel can do not good. If Hamas shoots rockets at settlements, it's because there are settlements. If Israel kills Hamas militants and there are civilian casualties, the report conveniently leaves out the fact that the militants put their mortars in and around residential areas. Israel gives an inch, their image loses a mile. We aggrandize the steps taken towards small investments in a Palestinian state, but forget about their dependence on Israeli largesse.
A poll came out recently that showed support for Osama Bin Laden had faded in the Arab world. The place where there was the highest support was amongst the Palestinian territories. Fatah supported the killing of Bin Laden and Hamas condemned it. Unity? Not really.
No comments:
Post a Comment