Friday, April 3, 2009 - 5:26 PM

Hamas and Fatah representatives showing deep concern over failed talks (AFP/File/Khaled Desouki)
Hamas and Fatah have announced that their talks in Cairo on a government of national unity have ended without agreement, to be resumed (perhaps) in three weeks. While some Egyptian sources are trying to spin this as a simple pause, with no deeper implications, few Arab commentators are buying it. Combined with the failure of the Doha summit and the formation of an extreme right-wing Israeli government, the suspension of Palestinian unity talks signals a rather depressing end to months of feverish diplomacy. Some brief thoughts:
Who is to blame for the failure of the talks? Hamas blames Fatah for being subservient to foreign influences (i.e. the U.S. and Israel), and Cairo for being too nakedly pro-Abu Mazen in its mediation. That's almost certainly right. Fatah blames Hamas for refusing to make basic concessions towards the Quartet conditions necessary for the international community to deal with a unity government. That's also almost certainly right. The Egyptians blame Qatar and Iran for stiffening the resolve of Hamas, while a lot of people blame Egypt for mismanaging the dialogue and being too obviously biased towards Fatah. Some point the finger at Washington, for not offering any positive signals which would lead either side to make the necessary conditions. The net takeaway from all those pointing fingers? The failure was probably over-determined.
Is the failure a bad thing? That depends on what you hoped to see accomplished. A lot of observers and players saw the talks as holding purely instrumental value, as an attempt to force Hamas to capitulate to Abu Mazen's leadership and the Quartet principles. They simply view Hamas as beyond the pale and would have seen any agreement which included them on more neutral terms as a failure -- and so the suspension of the talks may appear as a net positive. But others of us saw an urgent necessity in overcoming the Hamas-Fatah divide, for the reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza, the channeling of desperately needed reconstruction assistance to Gaza, and the negotiation of a coherent single Palestinian government and negotiating team. For what it's worth, 73% of Palestinians wanted to see a unity government. If you want to be glass half-full about it, I suppose you could argue that the new Israeli government wasn't going to deal with a Palestinian government of national unity anyway so they might as well take more time to get it right. But I'm more glass empty on this one, because...
Where do we go from here? Nowhere good, I fear.
I'm hoping that the Obama team has a plan for how to deal with all of this, beyond the West Bank First, Fatah Only concept which has been on public display thus far... or simply shifting over to the Syria track and putting the Palestinian track on the back burner. Really hoping. Because WBF/FO isn't going to work... and the Palestinian track has a way of not staying on the back burner.
Professor Lynch gave a wonderful account. I am not sure if a collapse is all that bad in this situation. The PA never had any real control at all. Diana Buttu has argued that the presence of a seeming government has masked the balance of power. Perhaps going to an international institution like the PLO will reaffirm that there was never a "Palestinian state" of equal power.
Trying to maintain a semblance of a "normal" state while not having the power to control a quarter of the areas it had offices set up to run took away from what Palestinians needed to be doing to address the edifice of the Occupation.
Last, the crumbling of the PA takes away the imaginary "power" that Fatah and Hamas were vying for. The government never had more than nominal power, so it was ridiculous to fight over it. In fact, Mrs. Buttu described it as two bald men fighting over a comb.
I am not sure this will be any better, but I don't see where things have been better having a PA in control. Even those with family in Ramallah, which is the area that has benefited the most under a PA government, knows that major problems of travel, ambulance blockages, incursions of tanks to the Menara and other parts of the city, and the water and waste crisis is not any better, nor, will it be because of the power differential.
. . . the Quartet conditions necessary for the international community to deal with a unity government.
"Quartet conditions necessary": three falsehoods in three words.
"Necessary": Obviously, any of the Quartet members is capable of dealing with a unity government if it so chooses, whether or not the conditions are satisfied.
"Quartet": On the other hand, the U.N. Secretary General, the European Union, and, to lesser extent, Russia, would pay a price for doing so; not because the "conditions" meet any need of theirs, but that they would incur the disfavour of the United States. The driving force behind the "conditions" is not the Quartet but almost entirely the U.S. (though some E.U. members might have some independent motivation of their own for pushing them).
"Conditions": This is the main point. As far as we the general public are concerned, there is really just one well defined condition among them, commitment to recognizing the state of Israel.
"Commitment to non-violence": It's not that the Quartet members, and especially the United States, are committed to their own right to violence, and abundantly tolerant of Israel's. One might argue from that that their demand is hypocritical, and far from being a necessary condition for admission to civilised society, just another vehicle for the interests of the strong against the weak. True, but not the point. The point is that the United States doesn't truly want Palestinian non-violence; it wants Palestinian violence directed as the United States would have it, Fatah against Hamas, Hamas against al Qaeda, etc. "Non-violence" doesn't mean non-violence.
What does it mean? You could try come up with some reasonable interpretation: no criminal violence, no external violence, whatever. But this is a trap, letting the poor definition of the condition sucker you into assuming that it means something you would find reasonable. The force behind this isn't you but the Government of the United States. The less clearly the condition is defined, the more it means whatever the United States wants it to mean.
"Acceptance of previous agreements and obligations": likewise, only more so. Who have those agreements and obligations ever been publicly enumerated or defined? How binding are they? Are they revocable or irrevocable, do they remain valid or have they been nullified by Israeli non-performance, are they conscionable or unconscionable, can they stand public scrutiny or would their publication discredit whoever assumed them or insisted on them? Do the non-U.S. Quartet members even know what they're demanding? As with "non-violence", so with "conditions and obligations", the only safe bet is that it means whatever the United States wants it to mean.
The previous U.S. administration has been abundantly criticised for foreign policy ineptitude, but it deserves credit here for a notable achievement, passing off this crock as the minimal demands of the civilised world, getting the main other players to sign this blank cheque to itself. Remaining to be seen is whether it locks in not just other countries but also the incoming administration; whether it suits its purpose, constrains it, or is waiting to be set aside for some new vehicle.
The requirement that the existence of Israel be recognized always amused me to some degree, because Israel clearly does not recognize the PA as a sovereign state government, at least not in its current form. They're the key negotiating partner, but they're buying in to a position of inferiority from square one.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
(3)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE