News analysis
Palestinian reconciliation
Try, try, try again
Feb 9th 2012, 15:37 by N.P | JERUSALEM
COUNTLESS Palestinian unity agreements, each named after a different Arab capital—Mecca, Sanaa and Cairo—have collapsed in acrimony. So optimism about the latest deal hammered out in Doha reconciling Palestine's two rival halves—Gaza and the West Bank—was in short supply. But as he has done before, on February 6th the peripatetic Fatah leader and Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, smiled for the cameras alongside Khalid Meshal, the exiled leader of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that runs Gaza, and promised reconciliation once again.
Back home others pondered how to spoil the deal. The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, called on Mr Abbas to choose between him and Hamas, implicitly threatening to cut off talks and possibly other ties if Mr Abbas formed "a Hamas government." In Gaza, where Hamas has governed for six years and built up an asset base they have no desire to relinquish, bureaucrats and civil rights sticklers raised constitutional objections.
Hamas's parliamentarians protested that the deal would make Mr Abbas both president and prime minister of an interim government (as well as chief of the armed forces and head of the PLO), empowering an autocrat at a time when the rest of the Arab world was sweeping them away. Several wondered how the head of a political movement could head a government describing itself as "technocratic". Tellingly, Ismail Haniyeh, Gaza's Islamist prime minster, was absent from the signing ceremony, though he had been in Doha the day before, as was Mr Meshal's deputy, Musa Abu Marzouq. Other normally garrulous strongmen in Gaza kept schtum. Their underlings called the deal illegal, and protested that Mr Meshal was acting alone without the movement's consent. Hamas's newspaper, Felasteen, gave the Doha deal a mere sidebar on the front-page, devoting most it to analysts who cast doubt on its implementation.
Messrs Abbas and Meshal have seemed weak of late. Both have lost their patrons—Hosni Mubarak for Mr Abbas and Syria's Bashar Assad for Mr Meshal—and have lacked any kind of political agenda. The former's efforts to secure a Palestinian state by negotiation with Israel or recognition at the United Nations have proved fruitless. Mr Meshal has come in for criticism for remaining so long under the Syrian president's protection in Damascus while Syrians, including his parent organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood, have risen up against the regime. The belated flight of his office staff from the Syrian capital has only weakened him further, leaving him homeless and headquarterless. From their Gaza stronghold, Hamas's leaders inside have challenged Mr Meshal's exiled leadership, and eroded his hold over the movement's finances, military supplies and diplomacy.
But the Doha gamble could yet pay off. Thanks to the deal, both Mr Abbas and Mr Meshal now have an agenda and a new common patron, Qatar. The wealthy Gulf emirate has offered a political and financial safety-net should Palestine's Western supporters spurn the new government on the grounds that Hamas is a terrorist movement. And anyway western powers have signalled that they might be comfortable with a unity government whose prime minster complies with their three conditions - of recognising Israel, upholding previous agreements, and renouncing violence. Anxious to portray itself as an inclusive moderate movement, the Muslim Brotherhood has given its backing. Fatah and Hamas's powerful military apparatus have also lent their support, having won guarantees that they will be left in charge of the security forces of their respective enclaves of the West Bank and Gaza for another year. "The material benefits from Qatar will push this deal through," says a member of Hamas's military wing.
Rejectionist politicians could still spoil the deal in the week left before the two sides are scheduled to meet again in Cairo to name their new government. If Mr Abbas does not delegate his powers to them, Mr Haniyeh and his ministers might stymie things on the ground. Mr Netanyahu might yet tempt Mr Abbas to reconsider, either with the carrot of goodwill gestures, or the stick of reducing his travel and other perks. All the same, with so little hope of movement on other tracks, Palestinian determination to heal their internal divide could be growing.
In this blog, our correspondents respond to breaking news stories and provide comment and analysis. The blog takes its name from newsbooks, the 16th- and 17th-century precursors to newspapers, which covered battles, disasters, debates and sensational trials
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Politics and private equity: Bringing the Bain
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- India-China relations and the media: Blame the messenger
- Turkey’s cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
- Facebook goes public: Not top of the pops
- Remembering Peter David: What he wrote
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Why would the Palestinians give up their principal negotiating points in advance.
There WILL be a Palestinian state, and soon. The groundswell of support is growing each year
You're right.
I think though-enshallah-that we are heading for a One-State solution; a bi-national State where each citizen is equal under the law regardless of religion.
Your cheering is like 'ONE HAND CLAPPING' … 'if a tree falls in the forest does any one hear?'
Compromise and Concessions by both sides or there will be no deal.
This includes:
• NO RIGHT OF RETURN
• SECURITY PRESENCE IN JORDAN VALLEY
• MAJOR SETTLEMENT BLOCS INCLUDING THE SUBURBS SURROUNDING JERUSALEM INSIDE THE JEWISH STATE with offsets offered inside today's Israel
• NO OFFENSIVE ARMY FOR ARAB/MUSLIM STATE
• NO FOREIGN TROOPS ALLOWED INTO ARAB/MUSLIM STATE
• Some accommodation regarding Jerusalem but Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel.
These are no brainers … What you see is what you get! The Security Wall traces the 'future' border …
I have made a few changes to your proposals..
1.) A partial right of return, say a symbolic figure of 100,000.
2.) A future Palestinian State to be demilitarised with either a US/EU/NATO military security presence acting in conjunction with a network of temporary Israeli observation positions.
3.) Occupied East Jerusalem is to be the capital of a future capital of a Palestinian State. The Old City can be shared. Jewish settlers to be rehoused or become citizens of a future Palestinian State.
4.) With regards to the future of the settlements land swaps have to be agreed on the condition that the ratio of the exchange is 1:1. Also, they have to be of the same geological and environmental composition. For example, portions of territory in the fertile Jordan valley in the West Bank can not be swapped for portions of territory in Israel's Negev desert.
5.) Finally, Israel has to promise never again to attempt to expand its territory or to block people's right to self-determination.
Sounds like OLMERT'S offer … it was turned down FLAT.
It's not about Israel … it's about the Arab/Muslim agenda … to defeat/expunge the Jewish State …
Ha, that was Olmert's offer. What the former Mayor of Jersualem agreeing to give up East Jersualem and to share the Old City? I wish. If that was Olmert's offer he would've been killed by Zionist Terrorists.
"I wish. If that was Olmert's offer he would've been killed by Zionist Terrorists."
WHAT'S IT TO YOU? It's between the Israelis and the Arab/Muslims … frankly … if they agree … it's OK with me … but the Arab/Muslims don't want to give up the Right of Return to Israel … so I say "let them eat cake"
BTW … See: http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2009/12/olmert-details...
It has everything to me now that we live in an interconnected world. No one wants to see Zionist-led persecution of the Palestinians to continue.
Aw … hand me a hanky …
There WILL be a Palestinian state, and soon."
As soon as the Arab/Muslims are willing to make Concessions & Compromises:
NO RIGHT OF RETURN to Israel
NO OFFENSIVE ARMY
EXISTING MAJOR JEWISH SETTLEMENT BLOCS WILL BE INSIDE ISRAEL … WITH OFFSETS PROVIDED
ISRAEL WILL MAINTAIN A MILITARY PRESENCE ALONG the JORDAN
JERUSALEM WILL BE THE UNDIVIDED CAPITAL OF ISRAEL but some accommodation will be offered to Arab/Muslims
SECURITY BARRIER/WALL WILL BE NEW BORDER
The 'Arab Spring' has made clear … there will be NO CAPITULATION to the Arab/Muslim agenda … the Arab League will have to sign off with Israel in an 'END OF CONFLICT' SETTLEMENT … NO OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH THE ARAB/MUSLIM WORLD …
Think about it this way … why would Israel make a deal without the ENTIRE Arab/Muslim World signing on? The deal would be worthless … as if the current Egyptian deal … negotiated by the Tyrant Sadat … would be forever … that’s why any deal needs to be COMPREHENSIVE …
The Palestinians are not able to speak through one voice … they are a divided people … but the dominant issue is … they are not prepared to make Concessions and Compromises in order to make an 'end of conflict' settlement!
When the leadership can say … 'Jewish State' … and 'NO RIGHT OF RETURN' for the so-called refugees … we'll all know that the time has come for a deal … until then … it's all posturing and a waste of time …
The Palestinian leadership … whether the PA or Hamas … are only bringing their hands out for charity donations … when and if they were 'cut off' from the funds of the West or the Emirates … they might have to actually make the important decisions they need to make in order to 'move on' with their lives and the lives of their people.
Stop the $$$ and you'll be well on your way to solving the conflict.
The right of return is enshrined in international law.
Why should Jews have the right to 'return' to Israel and not the indigenous population? Sounds like double standards to me.
Maybe the US should stop its massive 'aid' packages to Israel until it ends its illegal colonisation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories...
The right of return to where? They have the right to return to Palestine … where ever that is … that's for sure … no problemo.
There is NO DOUBLE STANDARD … that's the point.
In 1948 the problem arose … it's 2012 and has not yet been solved … sounds like a PROBLEM TO ME … the longest running refugee problem on Planet Earth … in 1947 … there were MILLIONS OF INDIANS AND PAKISTANIS REFUGEES that needed settlement … that's been done and paid for years ago. Yet the Arab/Muslim Refugees … are still on the dole of the UN … with their own REFUGEE AGENCY … DEDICATED TO THEIR NEEDS … UNWRA … what's up with that? Talk about DOUBLE STANDARDS?
Stop cooking with cheese! lol
They'll have to move on …
What's one got to do with the other?
Today … Egypt has 'captured' 19 American NGO's … working on civil society and democracy issues in Egypt! They're holding them hostage seemingly to extort the USA for $$$$ …
BTW … the so-called West Bank is disputed territory … it's borders to be set by the combatants in eye-ball to eye-ball negotiations … Compromise and Concessions will need to be offered BY BOTH SIDES.
Israel made legit offers in 2000 & 2008 … both were rebuffed!!!
The Arab/Muslims don't want a solution … they want their cake and eat it too. That is, Palestine without recognition of the Jewish State. It ain't gonna happen!
As their name suggests Arabs are indigenous to Arabia not Israel.
Any claim for their right of return to their indigenous land should be addressed to Jeddah not Jerusalem.
Israel was a 20th century European creation that is completely out of place in the region very much like the Crusader States were in their time.
Also, the Middle East is a multi-national/multi-racial region where Arabs are only one people. Your ignorance about the ethnic make-up of the Middle East goes a long way in explaining your intransigent and quasi-fascist approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Maybe the settlers can move back to the US/Canada/Europe?
Wow. Have you not read the news....
Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, Aaron D. Miller and Jeremy Ben-Ami have all claimed that the famous Israeli offer of 2000 was in fact unworkable.
As for the 2008 negotiations between Olmert and the PA, they were broken off because Olmert resigned in the face of allegations of corruption. Which 'peace-loving' party then came into power?
Here is an interesting fact. Both Israel and the PA agreed to the Roadmap... Israel though had 14 reservations, the PA had zero. What does that tell you?
Yet still the settlement expansion continues. And still Israel creates new demands: "You have to recognise us as a Jewish State". Israel is not even entirely Jewish! Does Italy make everyone recognise it as a Catholic country?
The problem of the Palestinian refugees began in the 19th century when a gang of Slavic-Jews though it would be a good idea to create a Jew-dominant Colony in a multi-faith/multi-race region. To make this work, they said, there would have to be a mass migration of European/North African/Middle Eastern Jews to help build this colony and to drive out the non-Jewish indigenous population.
In short, Israel is product of classic European colonialism.
"Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, Aaron D. Miller and Jeremy Ben-Ami have all claimed that the famous Israeli offer of 2000 was in fact unworkable."
Clinton and Barak … accused Arafat for scuttling the 'deal' … they could have made it happen … Arafat said NO
• RIGHT OF RETURN was his issue - that is, the destruction of Israel as a Jewish State
Dennis Ross was also at the table … and wrote about it … you're misinformed.
"The problem of the Palestinian refugees began in the 19th century" …
This is PREPOSTEROUS … anyone with a census could tell you that your WRONG. Arab/Muslims flocked to the area as a result of the industriousness of both the Jews and the British (especially after the creation of the Mandate) … there was no issue of creating refugees until the ATTACK BY ARAB/MUSLIMS AGAINST THE YISHUV AFTER NOV 1947 AND ESPECIALLY AFTER MAY 1948 …
The 'tragedy' of the refugees is entirely a 'self-created' issue … the Arab/Muslims began an exodus which then was expanded by military necessities … read Benny Morris … 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem' 2nd Edition … he's the expert and does not whitewash the Israeli contribution to the 'problem' …
In short, the 'Problem' is a product of Arab/Muslim intransigence.
Yeh, Dennis Ross was the first to write about it but then others wrote about it too, including Aaron D. Miller who was also at the table along with Clinton. Also, Arafat red line was Israel's reluctance to return Occupied East Jerusalem.
Joan Peter's "From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine", from which your basing your argument is long considered a fraud. Expand your reading list beyond ZIonist propaganda.
You need 'a reading list' … your opinions are skewed
Jerusalem had a majority JEWISH population in the mid-1800's … that's a fact …
Jews and Britain … attracted Arab/Muslim migration … that's obvious! Family names reflect this migration … remember there was NO COUNTRY … THERE WAS THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND MOVEMENT WAS ALLOWED …
BTW … the indigenous Arab/Muslim population … FOR THE MOST PART … did NOT OWN THE LAND they farmed … they were merely workers on lands owned by ABSENTEE LANDLORDS … British improvements brought Arab/Muslims to the cities … especially Jaffa and Haifa … 2 PORTS RUN BY THE BRITS … Jerusalem only grew exponentially under the Brits & Jordanians …
like most Arab/Muslims … the people were Illiterate … peasant labourers …
It's not about Joan Peter … it's about what the Arab/Muslims are/were … look at rural Egypt today and think about it!
Mecca is the capital of what, exactly?
No where, it isn't a Capital.