The decision by Hamas to boycott reconciliation talks with Fatah in Cairo, forcing Egypt to cancel the meeting altogether, throws away what was a decent opportunity for urgent fence mending. Forming a joint Palestinian government, rebuilding security forces and setting a date for presidential and legislative elections — all must now be delayed until, as Egypt says, “the necessary and proper conditions are achieved to secure its success,” whenever that may be.
It is difficult to verify the Hamas accusation that Fatah has failed to release hundreds of Hamas political prisoners — the reason behind the Hamas boycott of the talks. But the issue could have been discussed between the parties in Cairo. That’s what meetings such as these are made for. The boycott of the talks — before they had even begun — highlights the huge differences between Fatah and Hamas. Perhaps we wouldn’t be skidding down this steep slope had Fatah gracefully accepted the decisive win of Hamas in the parliamentary elections and put its own house in order.
However, there are credible leaders on both sides who advocate partnership. They may differ on many things, political and social, yet they must articulate what is common. They and all others need to put forward constructive ideas, not contribute to the break between the two movements. Imposing conditions is not the best way to establish good relations, not to say anything of arm-twisting, blackmail and threats.
If there is anything Hamas and Fatah agree on, it is that Israel cannot be persuaded to concede anything significant without effective resistance. The Israelis are not slovenly when it comes to spotting and furthering Palestinian weakness. The historical record, Israel’s relentless territorial advance, as well as analyses of Israeli political forces and mindset, tell us that the Jewish state, in the absence of a countervailing force, will continue to expand and consolidate its colonial presence. If it were to offer the Palestinians anything, it would be at best a small, shredded and feeble entity.
Hamas and Fatah may not agree on the forms that resistance should assume but their leaders need to push for consensual politics. It is a demanding task, but this is the hour of statesmanship. Personal profit is a luxury we cannot afford when the Palestinian national resistance movement is falling apart. Palestinians may still be able to garner sufficient political will, and enable their leaders to emerge and see beyond their own or their factions’ interests, and chart a new course. A vast majority of Palestinians are for reconciliation and for ending a feud detrimental to their political aspirations.
If any agreement between Fatah and Hamas is to be reached, they need to learn to work together toward fulfilling common Palestinian objectives instead of playing to a captive audience or preaching to the converted. The talks, due to have started yesterday, would have been the first official meeting between the two main Palestinian factions since the Hamas took over Gaza in June last year. Their postponement is an opportunity missed. The political climate is conducive to serious dialogue. The current Hamas-Fatah relationship, while tense, is not violent. And when it comes to the peace process, the possible next Israeli prime minister, Tzipi Livni, will be no worse than Ehud Olmert, and Barack Obama no worse than George W. Bush. If anything, the new faces will be more amenable to changing the status quo than their predecessors.
But Obama and Livni must first hear and be met with a strong, unified Palestinian voice.
