JERUSALEM, 18 March 2005 — An open-ended truce agreed by Palestinian militants yesterday has a better chance of ending years of bloodshed with Israel than previous efforts. But while it may buy time for peacemaking, it falls short of the complete cease-fire that could be required for negotiations on a final settlement that might put a stop to decades of conflict in the Middle East, analysts say.
The factions formally agreed with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at a meeting in Cairo to keep a recent de facto truce as long as Israel stops attacks and releases prisoners. The last attempt to do something similar lasted just 50 days in 2003 before collapsing in violence. But the picture is dramatically different since the death of iconic leader Yasser Arafat last year and his replacement by Abbas, who agreed a cease-fire with Israel on Feb. 8 and has been trying to get the militants to come on board formally.
“An importance difference is that you now have the leaderships of all major parties, including the Israelis, which have an interest in maintaining quiet,” said Mouin Rabbani of the International Crisis Group think tank.
Islamic militant groups like Hamas, sworn to destroying Israel rather than building a state alongside it, have been weakened militarily and also see a real chance for making gains by moving nearer the political mainstream. They also notice a sweeping shift in public opinion against suicide bombings and a surge in hopes for an end to a 4 1/2-year old uprising that has crippled Palestinian life.
Israel also has every interest in preserving calm, though it emphasizes it will not restart talks for a Palestinian state until militant groups are dismantled. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would very much prefer to be able to carry out a planned withdrawal from the occupied Gaza Strip and northern West Bank this summer with only angry settlers to worry about and not Palestinian attacks.
“I think there is probably going to be more self-restraint on Israel’s part this time,” said Israeli analyst Mark Heller. “I don’t think they’ll be carrying out arrest operations unless they have very clear information that something’s going to happen.”
The international community — vitally the United States — is much more engaged than before, sensing a rare chance for progress in the Middle East after Arafat’s death and more willing to push both sides to keep in line. Meanwhile, key militant supporter Syria is under great foreign scrutiny over its role in Lebanon and cannot afford to be accused of sabotaging the new optimism.
The situation will remain very fragile, though, especially given that there is no formal cease-fire and that the militants keep alive the possibility of returning to conflict. “One misstep by one person and the whole thing could still go up in smoke,” said Rabbani. The suicide bombing by an Islamic Jihad cell on Feb. 25, without the approval of some of the group’s leadership, demonstrated the danger still posed by mavericks and splinter groups. Abbas himself has said that he suspects there would be more such attacks.
The chances of the agreement falling apart are also likely to increase if the militant groups do not get the moves they want from Israel and feel in danger of losing credibility as a result. To satisfy the militants, Israel would have to free many more of the 8,000 prisoners it holds, including those behind attacks that shed Israeli blood, as well as stopping all military operations. Troop pullbacks would have to be more sweeping than Wednesday’s redeployment around the city of Jericho.
Even harder questions will have to be answered if some of that happens and violence is kept on hold long enough for Israel to carry out its withdrawal from Gaza. Then, the Palestinians will want to press the Israelis for full peace talks that might lead to statehood in both Gaza and the West Bank along the lines of a US-backed “road map” for peace. But the Israelis are likely to reject any such idea before the dismantling of the militant groups — a provision of the road map, but one which Palestinian analysts say could lead to civil war.
By that time, Hamas also hopes to be in a stronger political position after parliamentary elections where it is expected to profit from popular anger at Abbas’ dominant Fatah movement for neglect and corruption. Despite any softening of its line on joining Palestinian institutions, Hamas remains opposed to peace negotiations. “No doubt Hamas’ integration into the political process will moderate its positions, with time. But the immediate impact of a Hamas victory will paralyze decision-making vis-a-vis Israel,” said political analyst Khalil Shikaki.
