The Bush administration is again committing a blunder in the Middle East by supporting the Israeli government in its refusal to recognise a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas. This precludes any progress towards a peace settlement at a time when such progress could help avert conflagration in the greater Middle East.
The US and Israel seek to deal only with Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president. They hope new elections would deny Hamas the majority it has in the Palestinian legislative council. This is a hopeless strategy, because Hamas would boycott early elections and, even if their outcome resulted in Hamas’s exclusion from the government, no peace agreement would hold without Hamas support.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is pursing a different path. In a February summit in Mecca between Mr Abbas and the Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, the Saudi government worked out an agreement between Hamas and Fatah, which have been clashing violently, to form a national unity government. Hamas agreed “to respect international resolutions and the agreements (with Israel) signed by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation”, including the Oslo accords. The Saudis view this accord as the prelude to the offer of a peace settlement with Israel, to be guaranteed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. But no progress is possible as long as the Bush administration and Ehud Olmert’s Israeli government refuse to recognise a unity government that includes Hamas.
[…]
There is now the chance of a political solution with Hamas brought on board by Saudi Arabia. It would be tragic to miss out on that prospect because the Bush administration is mired in the ideology of the war on terror.
Meanwhile, as expected, there is some movement in Europe towards dealing with the new government and ending the financial boycott, notably from Norway. Probably soon from France, too. I understand that Germany could be more flexible as well in dealing with Hamas, but is a bit tied at the moment as it performs EU Presidency. (Another problem is that the US anti-missile shield for Poland and the Czech republic complicates relations with Washington.)
If the EU dealt with the new government, as I think it should, it would probably not immediately make a difference on the international scene. The US and Israel would hardly be impressed. But it would for sure strenghten Hamas’ moderates (the two ideologues Zahar and Siam are already no longer members of cabinet) and improve conditions on the ground for the population.
I see no reason why a cabinet with moderate people such as Finance Minister Salam Fajad, Information Minister Mustafa Barghuti and Tourism Minister Abou Daijeh could not be dealt with.
France has already announced that Salam Fayyad would be invited to Paris. And I think that if the EU decided to resume financial assistance, it would make a difference, as the European Community and the Member states provide the biggest contributions in total. It is likely that it would piss the US / Israel off, and that’s probably why the EU is not likely to move very soon. Except if the US govt is clever enough to understand that it’s the best thing to do (but maybe is it somehow caught in the hands of its israeli hardliners friends), even in its own interest. Does the US really want more mess in the territories, leading to more Iranian involvement? Shouldn’t it give credit to the Saudi diplomacy? I guess some people in Washington think so.
That’s what I meant. Could make a difference in terms of financial assistance.
I do hope that some people in Washington think so. But I think it will take ages until we see some good old realpolitik in the region again. Want to contain Tehran’s influence in the levante? Then maintain good working relationships with every faction (including Hamas) and bankroll everyone who’s around whether you like them or not. (Plus, they’re elected, but that doesn’t matter in realpolitik.)
Instead, they’re crying their eyes out about formal acceptance of Israel. Just work with them and see where it’s leading to.
In the end it’s a question of weighing different interests against each other. The mess that you mentioned, Benjamin, benefits Israel (at least in the short-term.), so why work on healthier inner-Palestinian relations? On the other hand, it opens the door to more Iranian influence.
I entirely agree. And the dilemma you mention means that we might well be in a situation where the discrepancy between US and Israeli interests could appear more clearly than ever, and that may have some consequences. Probably not enough to change US policy, but maybe enough to give the green light to Europeans.
I still think they should get rid of the “right to resist” crap. If likudniks and PA extremists have one thing in common it is an obsession with that phrase. Both use the “right to resist” to harvest fear and silence moderates who are ready to make key compromises.
Consider if it was nicked from the constitution: it would be an epic PR victory for the PA and force newspapers all around the west to write in-depth about the unity government. Israel would be on the defensive and the pressure to open up to talks would increase massively. Though I hope the US would change it’s policy, with GWB at the helm they would surely miss the chance and fuck it up somehow. On the plus side, it would become a talking point among 2008 candidates and a litmus test to see who has the balls to truly make progress on peace. A great opportunity to attack Hilary and the AIPAC drones. And in the end, Palestinians would have no less “right to resist”– it’s not like those who do take part in the resistance are limited by the Palestinian constitution.
Hey, I’m really happy with my own government’s foreign policy for once! After foolishly following the Americans in boycotting Hamas, the Norwegian secretary of state has been the first European government representative to officially meet with Ismael Haniyeh. The Norwegian government now wants to end the boycott and lift the economic sanctions, seeing that Hamas has made enough concessions without Israel giving anything in return (quite the opposite in fact). Israel has responded by cancelling all meetings with the secretary of state, Raymond Johansen, who is now in the Middle East. Been gnawing my teeth for months over my government’s participation in this insane boycott. Khalas!
U.S. diplomat meets Palestinian official
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070320/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_us
Celine, I’ve been trying to understand some of the debate that’s going on in the forums of Aftenposten.
I’m wondering, why is it that Norwegians generally appear to be more sympathizing with the Palestinians then people elsewhere in Europe?
Frederik: I don’t know if they really are more sympathizing than others. My impression is that the peoples of Europe are generally pro-Palestinian? Either way, according to various surveys, Norwegians are the ones in Europe most fed up with Bush and Israeli politics, maybe that’s why. On the political elite-level in Norway, there is a wish to play a central role in the Palestinian-Israel conflict as peace-brokers, as in the Oslo Accords. That’s sort of our image, and may explain why we feel we have a special responsibility for the Palestinian cause