Posted By Marc Lynch Share

While most American eyes today will be on President Obama's anticipated speech on withdrawal from Iraq (about which I'm more optimistic today than I was yesterday, but a bit less than on Wednesday!), the most important news out of the Middle East today may be the announcement in Cairo that Fatah and Hamas have agreed in principle on the formation of a national unity government by the end of March. That should give Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell much to talk about during the secretary's upcoming visit. 

Joint Hamas-Fatah press conference in Cairo (source: al-Sharq al-Awsat)

Such a Palestinian national unity government could offer a viable Palestinian negotiating partner, a way to channel reconstruction aid into Gaza, an end to the endlessly destructive Fatah-Hamas conflict, and even an indirect way for Hamas to honor the Quartet's conditions. The Palestinian reconciliation enjoys the seemingly enthusiastic backing across those old Arab divides -- Syria and Egypt, the Saudis and Qatar.

The details of the proposed "National Accordance" government [al-tawafuq al-watani] remain vague, and everyone expects hard bargaining to come.    The proposed reconciliation is to include rebuilding the PLO, holding new Parliamentary and Presidential elections, and reconstructing the Palestinian security forces. They also agreed yesterday to put an end to hostile media campaigns and to work towards reconciliation.  But the hard choices seem to have been largely deferred to committees, and there are wide gaps in the expectations of the two sides and a lot of mutual resentment and mistrust. But the Arab governments seem keen on reaching agreement before the Doha Arab Summit scheduled for the end of March.

Everyone recognizes that the Cairo agreement is a beginning rather than an end to the political struggles over intra-Palestinian relations -- but it's important to even seen a beginning after many long months of division and conflict.  And the challenges to any kind of peace deal with Israel remain overwhelming, even if the Palestinian reconciliation is achieved.  But it would be a dramatic and important positive development nonetheless, draining the intra-Palestinian political poison and focusing on moving ahead.  I hope that the Obama administration gets behind the moves towards an "accordance government" rather than reverting to the old Bush policies of trying to isolate Hamas.  I think it will. 

In fact, I'd go further.  I think that this dramatic shift in Arab politics from confrontation to reconciliation directly reflects Arab evaluations of the new administration, and the messages they've been receiving from George Mitchell.   And that's all to the good.   The  Arab regional trend towards reconciliation and the abandonment of the "moderate/rejection" discourse is a concrete manifestation of their readiness for "real change" -- which could have positive effects on a whole range of inter-connected regional issues including Iraq and Iran.  Welcoming signals from the U.S. now could go a long way towards making this happen, and could make the Doha summit very interesting indeed. 

 

TESS

10:06 PM ET

February 27, 2009

Want to share the positive outlook...

I would very much like to have the same positive outlook on these events, but sadly, I don't at this time. I agree that it could only be beneficial for the Middle East to see less factionalism. Yet, perhaps we have walked this road of hope too many times.

The author states: "In fact, I'd go further. I think that this dramatic shift in Arab politics from confrontation to reconciliation directly reflects Arab evaluations of the new administration, and the messages they've been receiving from George Mitchell. And that's all to the good. The Arab regional trend towards reconciliation and the abandonment of the "moderate/rejection" discourse is a concrete manifestation of their readiness for "real change" -- which could have positive effects on a whole range of inter-connected regional issues including Iraq and Iran. "

I disagree that this is solely due to the new administration. The calls for this went out during the Gaza Massacre. Both sides were left very weakened by the war. Those that stood on the side lines were questioned not only by their populace, but by powerful social leaders that generally felt their illegitimate governments were better than the alternative. Those thinking war is the answer have as yet to show it possible. Each war, one side gains in legitimacy, and the other loses. Yet, the facts on the ground, at least in the conflict zones, weaken one side and strengthen another. That leaves a very unstable position for the populations of each nation. Neither would truly benefit from civil unrest. I wonder if this is not part of the reason for the movement we are seeing. And, if this is true, then there is a small reason to hope. Actions for self interest are more likely to succeed, than those in response to another nation's lead, which can change at that nation's whim.

Lastly, could the author, or an avid reader, link where an explicit definition of the two camps is described, so newer readers are operating on the same definitions. This reader would be greatly appreciative.

 

NEIL IN OTTAWA

3:16 PM ET

February 27, 2009

But what about the other side?

Professor Lynch, thank you for your analysis. Hopefully you will write about what it would mean for peace if Israel has a Netanyahu-Lieberman government. Will the progress between Fatah and Hamas matter?

 

Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Read More