Analysis: “Hammas and Fatah: A Regional Divide or a Beleaguered Government?”

Here’s an excerpt from my piece in Islamica Magazine this month. For the full text, click here.

Despite Hamas’ electoral success, unity eludes Palestinians as Hamas and Fatah battle over the terms of a coalition government. In addition, international sanctions have added fuel to a raging internal fire, stretching thin an already dire economy and increasing the anger of the people. The Palestinian National Accord seems to be a first step towards creating Palestinian national unity; whether it will lead to the lifting of international sanctions remains to be seen.

The Palestinian struggle is generally understood to be an effort to end Israeli colonization and assert the dignity, humanity, and rights of the Palestinian people. As such, Palestinians face one of the biggest challenges ever encountered by a colonized nation: an oppressor with the international status of a victim. Despite over 50 years of relentless colonization driven by an ideology of religious and racial exclusivity, Israel continues to hold its position as a haven for the victimized Jews of Europe supported by the strongest nation in the world, the United States.

After decades of peace efforts and resistance, the Palestinians are now confronting a new task of immense difficulty and historical importance: political unity. Since Hamas’ sweeping victory in last year’s elections, Palestinians have organized countless meetings between the leading figures of Fatah and Hamas in order to create a unified platform. From Damascus to Mecca, Palestinian President, Mahmood Abbas, and Hamas leader and Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, have tried to curb the surge in factional violence and find a political solution to the factional disunity plaguing the Palestinian scene. Certainly the quest for a solid fist of Palestinian politics is nothing new. As far back as the catastrophe of 1948 (al-Nakba), one can say that Palestinians have been wrestling with the problem of national unity. The formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964, for example, attests to the struggles and success of past efforts to establish a unified Palestinian front. But today, with over 30 Palestinians killed in the last week during battles between Palestinians in what has been called both a proxy and civil war, the fragile fabric of Palestinian political unity stands to be unraveled.

Since December 2006, 100 Palestinians have been killed as a result of internal fighting between Fatah and Hamas loyalists; no less than 33 were killed during the last three days. But as the battle rages on, the signs of a new political horizon are emerging in the east. Symbolically hosted by the Saudi Kingdom in Mecca, the birthplace of Islam, recent Palestinian negotiations have produced the basis for a new Hamas-led government, with Haniyeh as Prime Minister and an as-yet unidentified member of Fatah as acting deputy prime minister. Addressing international concerns, the plan also has the feature of “respecting” past PLO agreements signed with Israel, a position Hamas has, until now, rejected. So far, most of the plan remains undisclosed and perhaps undetermined. Thus it looks more like a sketch than an architectural blueprint for unity.

But despite its limitations, the agreement nevertheless signals a new step towards the realization of the elusive goal of unity. Until now, most efforts have faltered under Abbas’s leadership, whose commitment to serving the twin masters of Israel and the US has placed him within an untenable political position vis-à-vis Hamas. Abandoning the Prisoners’ Document, Abbas has often distanced himself from the most realistic framework for securing a unity government and further alienated himself from the Palestinian people. Perhaps more importantly, the Mecca agreement also suggests that Fatah’s position as an Israeli/US proxy is still incomplete and, potentially, preventable. Recently, the US offered $86 million of support for Abbas claiming its commitment to “boosting” the “moderate” leader. In addition, a recent shipment of arms to Abbas’ executive guard suggests the possibility of an intense struggle under the Jewish state’s authorization and direct support. But if the agreement holds, then perhaps Fatah can refrain from playing the colonial role of proxy and work towards uniting the people under its own conditions.

For Hamas, the agreement also presents an opportunity to avoid prolonging the illegal and deplorable policy of international sanctions. Thus far, international economic sanctions have forced Hamas to seek support from the only willing source, Iran. By accepting financial support from the Islamic Republic, Hamas has raised international “fears” of a Hezbollah-like situation in Gaza and stiffened the Quartet’s position on the Palestinian government. One can hardly blame the group considering that the international sanctions are the very reason Hamas turned to Iran for much-needed funds. In this sense, the Quartet has taken the hypocritical stance of punishing Hamas for following the only course available, given international conditions. But the Mecca agreement also comes with the Saudi promise of $1 billion dollars in aid to the starved Palestinian government. If delivered, the assistance will not only undermine Western accusations that Hamas is aligned with the “axis of evil,” but also encourage other Arab leaders to play a greater role in supporting Palestinians and repair the fractured arena of Arab political unity.

But the effects of the Mecca agreements will have to be felt fast. Indeed, while Palestinian leaders hammer out their political differences, violence continues on the streets of Gaza. In addition, Israel and the Quartet (excluding Russia) are doing all they can to derail the Saudi initiative by downplaying Palestinian efforts and reaffirming their hypocritical conditions for negotiations. Their responses thus far have been nothing short of a flat-out rejection, stating that the new Palestinian government must recognize Israel’s “right to exist,” a condition with as little legal weight as a feather on a windy day: states don’t have rights. Furthermore, Israel is exploiting every minute of Palestinian disunity to further its colonial goals. While international attention remains fixed on negotiations in Mecca, Israel is expanding illegal settlements throughout the West Bank, fortifying its Apartheid wall in east Jerusalem, and conducting controversial excavations at the al-Aqsa mosque,7 Islam’s third holiest site, thus enraging Muslims across the world.

Suffice it to say that neither the US nor Israel seems willing to accept any form of Palestinian unity that doesn’t conform to the unrealistic conditions set forth by the Quartet: recognize Israel’s “right” to exist while denouncing its own right to resist Israeli colonization. By rejecting the Prisoners’ Document as the basis for a new Palestinian government, it seems that the international community is once again prepared to hold out for greater political concessions and more Palestinian bloodshed. Indeed, while the EU and UN ignore Palestinian efforts for unity, the US and Israel have pursued a military option by using Abbas and Fatah to fight a proxy war against Hamas.

The most basic of historical experience teaches us that Palestinian disunity only benefits Israel. Hoping to impose its own recipe for solving the conflict, one based on a unilateral withdrawal from minor settlements and the annexation of large chunks of Palestinian territory including east Jerusalem, the Israeli government is content to see factional conflict lead to widespread desperation and greater concessions. From afar, it seems that Palestinians have few options available to them except to resolve internal divisions and return to the principles of the prisoners’ document in order to form a new government and avert a civil war. Whether or not the Mecca Accords and new government will end the sanctions remains to be seen but, from a Palestinian standpoint, the effort can at least provide the basis for a much-needed unity that can effectively confront the world community and continue its struggle for freedom and justice.

MICHAEL VICENTÉ PÉREZ is a doctorate candidate in anthropology at Michigan State University.