Rival Palestinian factions ended a marathon talks in Cairo to reach national reconciliation and forge a unity government. The intra-Palestinian dialogue was launched in Cairo on March 10 and included five committees to discuss core issues: reconciliation, unity government, reforming PLO, holding elections and to reorganize the Palestinian security services. The convened members from the 13 Palestinian factions left Cairo making headway in reaching an agreement on reforming the security services and holding presidential and parliamentary elections by January 2010. Despite the important progress, central issues including forming a national unity government and reforming the PLO remain a major obstacle to national Palestinian reconciliation. Before leaving Cairo, the delegates deferred the outstanding issues to a higher committee in effort to continue dialoguing.
Forming a Palestinian unity government requires more than reconciliation talks between the Palestinian factions and should be considered as part of a more regional plan to put the Palestinian house in order. First, the U.S. should reconsider its policy toward Hamas, as it already did concerning dialogue with Syria and Iran. Second, the head of the next Palestinian unity government must be accepted by the international community to help the reconstruction of Gaza.
Israeli Haaretz newspaper published an article on March 12 saying U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warned Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and other Arab leaders that the U.S. would withdrew the pledged $900 million to reconstruct Gaza, if the next Palestinian unity government does not meet the Middle East Quartet preconditions. Those include recognizing Israel, renounce terrorism and to be obligated by previously signed peace agreements with Israel. The U.S. stance on this issue has not changed and Clinton’s statement came to reconfirm the obvious. This, however, is considered a boost for Abbas’ faction, which is in line with Washington’s policies. The U.S. demands give Fatah leverage during the negotiation with Hamas as it signals that Washington would not bless the unity government if Hamas remains outside the game.
Disagreements between Fatah and Hamas on forming a national unity government are mainly over “recognizing the right of Israel to exist.” While Fatah acknowledges the existence of Israel based on pre-signed agreements including Oslo, Hamas charter does not. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum told the Associated Press that Hamas was “not part of these agreements, and therefore, no one should expect us to endorse them.” Supporters of this argument claim that Hamas has became a political party after winning the election in 2006. Thus it is entitled to its views, the same way ultranationalist Israeli political party Yisrael Beitenu is entitled to its view as well. The two parties are considered extremists, where the former does not recognize Israel and the latter wants to throw the Arab-Israeli citizens outside Israel, but both were elected into their perspective governments.
Nonetheless, if Hamas wants to play the political game and end its international isolation, then it must compromise. It is true that recognizing Israel by the Islamic movement might be the end of Hamas’s legitimacy as a “resistance movement” in the region. The Islamic group, however, can afford other compromises to show commitment for forming a national unity government, such as to allowing non-Hamas official to fill the position of the prime minister who would be accepted by the international community and for that mater would be able to talk with Israel.
Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayad, who rendered his resignation to pave the way for the talks to succeed, is the closest ally to Washington and the most trusted in handling the PA finance, would once more be the point man to head the national unity government. Hamas, in the meantime, rejected Fayad as a head of the unity government, a stance that showed the Islamic group’s rigid approach to form a new government.
A compromise by Hamas, however, must be reciprocated by the international community. Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit held a meeting with European officials in Brussels concerning the talks in Cairo while the intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman held meetings in Washington to secure a U.S. approval of such unity government.
The Egyptians' efforts, if successful, will not be against President Barack Obama’s new “soft power” approach in the Middle East. The recent overtures toward Syria go along with softening the U.S. stance on Hamas which will eventually help putting the Palestinian house in order.
U.S. positive involvement in the Middle East coupled with “soft power” policy toward Syria would allow Damascus to play a pivotal role in pressuring Hamas to seek reconciliation with Fatah. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Egypt can also influence Fatah and the direction of the reconciliation talks; and perhaps reaching the illusive goal of reaching a long lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
*Written exclusively for AlArabiya.net. Rawhi Afaghani is a conflict analysis and resolution specialist and media analyst. The author grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank and now lives and works in Washington, DC. He can be reached by email at [email protected]