With the truce between Hamas and the Israelis less than a week old, the Israelis have once more sealed the border after four rocket attacks into Israel. Three were claimed by Islamic Jihad in response to the slaying Tuesday of one of their men during an Israeli special forces raid into Nablus on the West Bank.
The assassination was a classic Israeli ploy in the face of any chance that peace — and thus a challenge to the status quo — is in danger of breaking out. The international community might well ask why the Israelis decided to mount such a provocative attack, but of course as usual the blame is being placed on the Palestinians, whom the Israelis will again claim cannot be trusted.
Hamas has assisted the propaganda being used against it by announcing it is not prepared to police the truce, to stop attacks such as that mounted by Islamic Jihad. To do so, said a spokesman, would bring it into conflict with other militant groups in Gaza which it does not wish to happen.
Yet Hamas has seized control in Gaza. If they cannot back up their truce initiative with policing on the ground, whom do they expect to do the job for them — Fatah? We have been here so many times before. It is worth wondering about the degree of thinking that went into the formulation of the truce proposal. It was obvious that the Israelis, while publicly welcoming the initiative, would cast around for the means to destroy it. Why then did Hamas not prepare the ground by gaining the agreement of other radical groups in Gaza to foil the Israeli designs? ?
When Israel bought the truce proposal, Hamas gained a victory by having its existence accepted as part of the solution to a Palestinian settlement. Had Hamas and Islamic Jihad protested the Israeli assassination but refrained from revenge, Hamas’ negotiating position would have been further strengthened and the world’s attention focused instead on the brutal occupation of Palestinian land, the ending of which underpins everything that Hamas and Fatah and the other groupings do.
Yet by allowing the new rocket attacks and by asserting that it is not prepared to do anything to stop them, Hamas has thrown away what it has gained. It has also prompted speculation that its leadership of radical Palestinians is slipping from it and that it may be starting to lose its grip on Gaza. Just as the once radical Fatah surrendered its leadership to Hamas, so Hamas may now be succumbing to more radical groups.
Herein lies the historic tragedy of Palestine. The failure to speak with one voice, even before partition in 1948, has always permitted the Israelis to dominate the debate. Even now when they occupy the West Bank and inflict collective punishment on the Gaza ghetto, the Israelis can still present themselves to the international community as the injured party, because unlike the Palestinians their message is uniform, consistent and always couched in eminently seductive terms.
