A ''BLACK PAGE'' TURNED OR A ''THREAT TO PEACE''?

In the region of the Palestine-Israel conflict an event has occurred which could significantly affect further progress towards a Near East settlement. The Palestinian Fatah and Hamas movements, which have been hostile towards one another over the past four years, have signed a cease-fire agreement, causing all the parties involved in the conflict to quake in their boots. All, of course, are concerned about their own interests in the region.

The fact that reconciliation was nigh became more or less obvious in the middle of March when Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian National Administration (PNA) and the leader of Fatah, left for Gaza to set up a dialogue with Hamas and to demonstrate the Palestinians' desire for nationwide unity. Abbas had not been in Gaza since 2007 when control over this region passed to the radicals in the shape of Hamas. Fatah, meanwhile, was retaining power over the West Bank. The sides' attempts to reach agreement collapsed when fundamental disagreements emerged, mainly over the nature and methods of the struggle against Israel. Whereas Fatah was leaning more towards reaching a compromise in talks with the latter, Hamas was showing every sign that it was not prepared to give in to the demands of the "Zionist occupiers". Bloody clashes even occurred frequently between supporters of Abbas and the radicals which condemned Palestine to considerable problems when confronted by a solid Israel.

The expiry of Abbas' presidential term and the activities of parliament, in which Hamas held a majority, helped to speed up the joint inter-Palestine process. This led to Fatah and Hamas, with Egypt acting as broker, signing a document on a cease-fire in Cairo. The document provides for an interim unity government to control the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, occupied by the Israelis. The agreement also presumes the start of preparations for parliamentary and presidential elections which are due to be held in a year's time. Mahmoud Abbas expressed confidence that the Palestinians had turned over a "black page" in their history and would never again allow a resumption of domestic confrontation. Hamas' leader Khaled Mashaal, for his part, described the agreement as the start of a new "Arab and a new Palestinian era", when "Israel will be put in a corner". Earlier, an official spokesman for the PNA, Nabil Abu Rudainah, said that Israel would have to choose between peace with a single Palestinian people and the construction of Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory.

Israel's reaction to all this was quite predictable. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu described the treaty of national reconciliation of the Palestinians as "a huge threat to peace and a great victory for terrorism". He condemned Abbas for doing a deal with Hamas, which Israel and a number of western countries see as a terrorist organization. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman demanded the immediate suspension of all contacts with the Abbas administration in Ramallah.

The PNA leader responded with this criticism of the Israeli leaders: "We reject blackmail and no longer wish to put up with the occupation of Palestinian territories." Abbas pointed out that reconciliation with Hamas is the Palestinians' internal affair: "They are our brothers, our family. There may be differences between us but we still arrive at a minimum level of understanding."

The inter-Palestinian reconciliation is clearly part of a major process which has gripped the whole Arab world. Among other things, one cannot fail to note that it was the result of a softening of Hamas' position in relation to Fatah. This may be explained by the uncertainty that has now arisen in Syria which is in the grip of unrest and whose ruling regime has for some time been one of the most influential patrons of the Palestinian radicals. On the other hand, there has been a clear radicalization of Fatah which in recent years, when it has become alienated from Hamas, has been unable to achieve any concessions from Israel on any of the fundamental questions of a Near East settlement to which, first and foremost, the destiny of the occupied Palestinian territories, the status of Jerusalem and the construction of illegal Jewish settlements are pertinent.

Finally, there is one more reason which nudged the two opposing Palestinian camps towards a speedy compromise. That was the possibility of recognition of the Palestinian state by the UN General Assembly. Although a decision by the latter is not essential, since only Security Council resolutions are binding, still support for Palestine by the majority of the world community could lead to more international pressure on Israel. 

In fact, for some time there has been a tendency towards a hardening in the position of the West, especially the US, towards Tel-Aviv's policy on the occupied Palestinian territories. We are talking about that same powerful centre of strength which has traditionally protected Israel, or at least has had a restraining impact on anti-Israeli forces in the international arena. France's attitude in recognizing the Palestinian state is worthy of note in this regard. At a session of the EU parliamentary foreign affairs commission on 16 March Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said that the possibility of recognition of the Palestinian state by the European Union should be seriously considered. Then, during the April session of the UN Security Council on the situation in the Near East, Gerard Araud, France's ambassador to the UN, noted that his country and other European states were weighing up the possibility of recognizing an independent Palestine. Finally, after the conclusion of an agreement on an inter-Palestinian reconciliation, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that France may recognize a Palestinian state this year "if the peace process is not resumed".

The latter thesis is very important in relation not just to French policy but also to US strategy vis-?-vis a Near East settlement. The year set by the Barack Obama administration to achieve a breakthrough at the talks between Israel and Palestine will soon be up. Washington and its European allies appear to want Israel to realize that it no longer has the power to restrain the PNA's international activities which are aimed at recognition of an independent Palestinian state. And the main argument is the complete legitimacy of the Palestinians' demand. It is significant that it has been supported by such financial titans of modern globalism as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Hence Israel's fears which are linked with the fact that the Palestinians' request that the UN recognize their state will lead to considerable geopolitical anxieties for the "Jewish state". It was not by chance that Prime Minister Netanyahu, immediately after the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, left on a tour of European capitals to discuss the current situation. Israel, however, remains true to its position, opposing Palestine's recognition in the UN before the end of the talks. As Netanyahu said, peace between Israel and the Palestinians is possible only as a result of talks, and not dictated by the UN.

The West, for its part, continues to call for an immediate resumption of talks between Israel and Palestine which became deadlocked as a result of the continuation by Israel of the construction of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem (the capital of the Palestinian state according to international legal documents adopted by the UN). Tel-Aviv's refusal to halt the construction of the settlements has led to a hardening of the position of the PNA which insists on a full-scale settlement defining the clear borders of the future Palestinian state within the framework of the 1967 borders and on a final and positive solution to the question of the recognition of East Jerusalem as its capital, and also settlement of the problem of the return of Palestinian refugees.

The West's readiness to recognize Hamas as a given, which has to be reckoned with, is also an undesirable symptom for Israel. US State Secretary Hillary Clinton stated openly that Washington will work with the new Palestinian government (which will clearly include representatives of Hamas). It is appropriate to point out in this connection that former US President Jimmy Carter, in an article in the Washington Post, urged the US and the whole international community "to help Palestinian democracy and to create a basis for a unified Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria and in the Gaza Strip, a state capable of concluding a secure peace with Israel". He warned international circles against undermining the agreement between Fatah and Hamas because otherwise "a new round of anti-Israeli violence would begin". In Carter's view, reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas is the Palestinians' contribution to the "awakening of the Arab world". He also disclosed that at the talks with him Khaled Mashaal consented to a "two-states" model, having preconditioned its approval at a referendum among the Palestinians.  

Peter Munch, the eminent German political analyst, also recommends that Israel and the West change their attitude towards Hamas for, in his opinion, "what is needed here is pragmatism and not reflective hostility". Writing in Suddeutsche Zeitung, he expressed confidence that an inter-Palestinian agreement would give a chance for a revival of the process of a Near East peace agreement. "Revolutions in the Arab world invoke new thinking. After all, those who are now establishing relations with their Egyptian "Muslim brothers" cannot keep their Palestinian god-children in isolation for long. The time has come to develop relations with Hamas, because its isolation, as the past has shown, only brings stagnation, and at worse - a deterioration in the situation," Munch believes.

Thus, the West is making it clear that it is very worried by the possibility of an even greater exacerbation of the situation in the Near East which could happen if the inter-Palestinian reconciliation is ignored: in other words, in point of fact, the course now being taken by the Israeli government.  The main reason urging the US and Europe (with all the obviousness of certain differences of approach to a Near East settlement) to uphold such a position is their reluctance to continue to carry the weight of a painful conflict which for decades has contributed towards a radicalization of attitudes to the West on the part of the Islamic world. This is all the more unacceptable for Euro-Atlanticists in the context of a further expansion of the "Arab revolution", against the background of which the US and its allies intend to achieve, on the one hand, a liberalization of the Arab regimes (which, naturally, would help to simplify the West's access to the strategic resources of the Near East and North Africa), and on the other to eradicate the forces operating under the banner of terrorist organizations or sponsoring their activities.