Opinion - News Analysis   

Scenes of Fatahland vs. Hamastan wilt sheer fantasy

Jonathan Freedland

There are huge dangers in offering Palestinians a choice of statelets — it will only push Hamas further into Iran’s orbit.

The utter confusion did not last long. For a few days, the key players in the Middle East conflict were simply too stunned by last week’s events to react. They could see that the landscape had changed completely — that the Palestinian national movement had split in two, with Hamas seizing Gaza, leaving Fatah in charge of the West Bank, thereby stumbling into a “two-statelet solution” no one ever planned. But what this meant for the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, no one was sure.

Now they’ve had time to regroup, the United States, Europe, and Israel think they’ve worked out a response. Not only that, they reckon they have seen a flicker of light in the gloom. Part of the perversity of their trade is to see opportunity where lesser mortals might see only crisis, and so it is now.

The western strategy, endorsed not only in Jerusalem and Washington but by European Foreign Ministers at their meeting in Luxembourg on June 18, is to set up an elaborate demonstration exercise for the Palestinians. They will be offered two alternative Palestines and asked to choose which one best represents their future.

On the West Bank shall arise Fatahland, soon to be showered with cash from the very western tap that stayed shut as long as Hamas was in the picture. President Mahmoud Abbas will not only receive money but multiple goodwill gestures from Israel: an easing of roadblocks, cooperation on security, a glimpse of the “political horizon,” meaning the prospect of negotiations aimed at an eventual Palestinian state. If things go well, a high-ranking Israeli government official told me on Tuesday, Israel could once again return chunks of West Bank territory to Palestinian control, as it did during the Oslo process.

In Gaza, meanwhile, would fester the new land of Hamastan, shunned by the rest of the world, starved of all but the most emergency humanitarian aid. Where Fatahland would feel the warmth of the west’s open arms and deep pockets, Hamastan would know only its cold shoulder. Pretty soon Palestinians would draw the obvious conclusion. As that Israeli government insider puts it, “they’ll understand that moderate policies bring home the bacon, while the other road brings only pain.”

You can see the appeal. If all went to plan, either Gazans would eventually rise up and eject Hamas from power, or Hamas itself would realise it had to change course.

After all, if the Palestinians of the West Bank were marching towards prosperity and statehood, Gazans would not want to be left behind. The upheaval of last week could surely bring another happy benefit. For years Israel and the U.S. have urged the Palestinian Authority to uproot the “infrastructure of terror” and crack down on Hamas — without much success. Now though, runs the thinking, Fatah is amply motivated to do the job.

After its members watched Hamas militants execute Fatah fighters in the street, loot Yasser Arafat’s home, and hurl Mr. Abbas’ personal cook from the 18th floor of a building to his death, Fatah is only too eager to flush out Hamas from the West Bank.It sounds logical enough. Nurture a flowering Fatahland while Hamastan withers away. But it is surely a delusion. The first and most obvious danger is that the more generous the west is to Mr. Abbas, the more his credibility will be destroyed.

Every dollar or euro he takes will confirm him as the lackey of foreign powers. We all know how easy it would be to wreck any rapprochement between Fatahland and Israel: a simple terror attack on Israeli civilians and it would all be over.

Hamas could be clever about it and ensure the attack came not from Gaza but from the West Bank, say in the Hamas stronghold of Nablus. That would undermine Mr. Abbas instantly.

The dangers are multiple. If the West Bank is lavished with money but much of it stays in Fatah’s gilded circle, thereby creating a class of haves and have-nots, there would be a surge of precisely the resentment that led to Hamas’ election victory in January 2006.

Who knows, Hamas could even end up taking over the West Bank too — after all, they had the edge over Fatah in elections there. Precedent makes clear that shunning the movement only makes it stronger. Ostracised for the last 18 months, they are more powerful than ever.

Yet this is the current strategy, not just of the Israelis and the Bush administration — who both reiterated it at Tuesday’s White House summit — but everyone involved. I know it’s always more comfortable to cast those two actors as the prime villains in this drama. On last week’s Any Questions, BBC Radio’s current affairs panel show, the panellists confidently condemned the 18 month-long American and Israeli embargo of Hamas. But that embargo or iginated in a set of United Nations demands that Hamas refused to meet, was backed by the EU and firmly endorsed by Britain. This, in other words, is our policy too.

But it is badly mistaken. The sounder approach is surely to recognise that Hamas is now a fact of life in the Palestinian territories, just as political Islam is a fact of life in the Middle East. We may wish it were not so — I certainly do — but we cannot wish it away.

The choice now, says Tel Aviv University analyst Gary Sussman, is either “to isolate Hamas, pushing it further into the Iranian orbit, or to engage it, luring it into the western and Sunni orbit.” This has to be the more pragmatic course. The story of the last few decades has been a constant effort to wish the Palestinians were represented by people other than those who actually led them.

Each of those attempts has ended in failure. It’s time to recognise reality and to follow the oldest advice in the diplomats’ handbook: you don’t make peace with your friends — you make peace with your enemies.

Guardian Newspapers Limited London 2007

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Unwarranted fury
Israel and Fatah
Rajnath Singh’s thirteen statecraft
We want consensus, not confrontation, on industrialisation: Buddhadeb
Scenes of Fatahland vs. Hamastan wilt sheer fantasy
New way for individuals to save rainforests
Corrections and clarifications
Advantage Pratibha
Not fair
On consensus
The veil controversy
Sir Salman
Proud moment

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu