BRUSSELS (Reuters) – European Union foreign ministers agreed on Friday to back a Palestinian national unity government being formed by President Mahmoud Abbas with the Hamas Islamist movement, despite U.S. misgivings.
“We agreed that we have to support the new Palestinian government. It’s a very important turning point for the situation,” Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema told Reuters.
While some countries such as France, Finland or Slovakia appear to be ready to accept Hamas in government, others such as the UK, Germany or the Netherlands hesitate, also considering that the Bush administration has not changed its position.
Washington said on Thursday it saw no grounds so far to lift the embargo on contacts and aid.
But many European governments are anxious to end the stand-off, which has contributed to aggravated poverty and lawlessness in the Palestinian territories.
I think it’s a mere question of time when the EU will come to terms with the new reality in Palestinian politics, and in the end the EU’s desire to play a more active role in the region independent from Washington could be the last push to normalize relations with Hamas.
Another country’s democracy doesn’t always give you who you who you wanted. There are more than enough examples of that. As a rule, I support the idea of Hamas in government; but in fact, I have a hard time considering that they haven’t quite given up armed conflict. I’m hoping the politicians can get them to mature to a political level by offering both the carrot and the stick. We’ve seen the stick. This then, may be the carrot. I wonder if Hammas will follow in the footsteps of Sinn Féin?
Mind you, I don’t know nearly enough about anything to speak authoritively. Thanks for the blog; it’s on my daily reading list.
Emanuel, you wrote: “I have a hard time considering that they [Hamas] haven’t quite given up armed conflict.” Has Israel given up armed conflict?
I think what Emanuel was trying to say is whether Hamas will give up its private military wing. It is a problem when the party in power of the state also has it own army outside the state’s “legitimate” monopoly of violence. The question then is of disaramament or inclusion in the state’s army/ security forces. This is exactly the same problem with the Hezbollah in Lebanon.
It is especially tricky in Palestine and Lebanon on disarmament of military wings as these are really the only ones that have had some form of effective armed resistance (however one might want to conceptualise this) and are very much considered as more protection that offcial army/security.
Of course Hamas has not given up armed conflict, neither should they considering the current context of the Israeli siege of Gaza and constant West Bank hit and run missions . Also, it is a question of how much power Hamas actually has over the relative autonomous Qassam brigades. Disbandment or incorporation in the national security forces might mean the formation of small, but very militant armed groups, intent on continuation of the armed struggle.
Tricky issue.
Yes, Atle is correct. If Hamas is running Palestine, then there is a problem when an attack is attributed to Hamas. Is it not by extention an attack by Palestine? The bluring of attribution is a bad thing, in my opinion.
I really am no authority. There is much too much about this situation that I do not know. As for putting forth a sollution… I’m at the stage where I hope but do not know whether these policies will be for the best.
One can hope.