Israel News | Zionism Israel Center | Zionism History | Zionism Definitions | ZioNation | Forum | Zionism FAQ | Maps| Edit

Monday, December 3, 2007

Hamas at Annapolis?

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/12/hamas-at-annapolis.html

Perhaps Hamas was really at the Annapolis meeting after all...
 
INSS POLICY BRIEF
 
December 4, 2007   No. 38
 
The Post-Annapolis Dynamic – The Hamas Factor
 
Anat Kurz
Although it was not represented at Annapolis, Hamas had a significant role in paving the way to the meeting.  Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip was clear evidence of the growing strength of the militant Islamist stream in the Palestinian camp, and it was therefore perceived as a threat.  However, that development also sharpened the distinction between those Palestinians who accept the idea of a two-state solution and the opposition still committed to total liberation from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and it was therefore also seen as an opportunity.  The political process, whose relaunch was signaled at Annapolis, expresses the aspiration to contain the threat and to expand the potential opportunity.  The split in the Palestinian Authority was interpreted as a chance to isolate Hamas, renew the dialogue between Fatah and Israel, and advance Israeli-Palestinian understandings, both as ends in themselves and as means to build a counter-force to the array of Islamist state and non-state actors, of which Hamas is part.  These goals were shared by the United States and other members of the Quartet as well as by members of the Arab League, who saw in revived Israeli-Palestinian political dialogue a way to promote the "Arab peace initiative."
 
Hamas' part in dictating the Israeli-Palestinian and regional agendas is not confined to the role it played on the road to Annapolis.  Hamas can also be expected to thwart discussion of the core issues – perhaps to the relief of opponents of compromise on both sides – and thereby subvert the goal of translating the spirit of Annapolis, as expressed in the speech of President Bush, into substantive progress toward a settlement.
 
Hamas' behavior in the prelude to Annapolis and its strident criticism of the speeches delivered there testify to the movement's perceived threat to its status and beliefs stemming from the American determination to promote political momentum and from the regional support for that, reflected in broad Arab participation in the conference.  Nor could the movement's leadership ignore the serious intentions of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to extricate the political process from the stalemate in which it has been mired for years.  With the elimination of further unilateral disengagements from the Israeli agenda came renewed hope that a political process could help Israel cope with immediate security threats and long-term security, demographic and political challenges.  "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, […] the State of Israel is finished," said Olmert at the end of the conference.  Fatah, for its part, needs a political process just to survive.  That is the legal, political and public basis of its claim to national leadership.  Abbas told the conference participants that "this opportunity might not be repeated," but his words seemed directed more at his own people, as if to lay the groundwork for the concessions needed to make possible a settlement.
 
What will Hamas to do to prevent Olmert and Abbas from promoting resolution of the conflict? It, too, will try to turn threat into opportunity and to strengthen its standing at the expense of Fatah.  Hamas cannot unleash a civil uprising in the territories; the Palestinian public is too exhausted for that.  But it does have a proven means of aborting any political breakthrough: escalation of the struggle against Israel and against Fatah.  From Hamas' viewpoint, those fronts were unified when both Israel and Fatah went to Annapolis.
 
Escalation of violence will embarrass Fatah.  As in the past, terror attacks will expose Fatah's weakness and further validate the warnings recently voiced by Israeli security agencies that lack of security rules out any direct progress toward a settlement.  Clashes between Hamas and Fatah activists, which will probably escalate the more political efforts intensify, will interfere with the implementation of plans, also involving Israel and the United States, to reorganize the security organs subordinate to Abbas and improve their capacity to confront militant opposition elements.  Escalating violence will likewise embarrass Saudi Arabia by pointing out the contradiction between Saudi intentions to promote the "Arab peace initiative" and its traditional support for Hamas.  Hamas' violent struggle, which depends on weapons smuggled across Gaza's southern border, will also encourage continued tension between Egypt and Israel, in contrast to the improved atmosphere that Annapolis was meant to generate.
 
Given a wave of terrorist attacks, Israel will find it very difficult to carry out its declared intention of acting to ease the burden on residents of the territories and helping Abbas to mobilize support for the political process and the struggle against the Islamist opposition.  Tightened closures, continued blockades of export routes and refusal to remove roadblocks in the West Bank will all lend credence to the claims of opponents of the political process, led by Hamas, that Israel is not truly bent on compromise and will justify it sticking to its own uncompromising positions.  In any event, escalating terrorism and harsh Israeli responses will lead to suspension of contacts between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.  Thus, the political process will revert to the logjam from which the US Administration tried to extricate it at the Annapolis meeting and which Arab League members tried to break through ratification of the "peace initiative."
 
And what about a new understanding between Fatah and Hamas, perhaps through another National Unity Government of the type that Egypt and Saudi Arabia tried to establish as part of their effort to promote the "initiative"?  Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip opened up a blood feud between the two parties.  The chances of conciliation between them are now lower than ever.  And even if there is some easing of tensions between them, that will not necessarily signal a renewal of the political process; after all, to reach agreement on principles for the last unity government, Abbas had to retreat from the demand that Hamas accept the conditions for dialogue posed by the Quartet.  Thus, the political process will be a victim of conflict between Fatah and Hamas and also of accommodation (however remote the prospects) between them. 
 
This means that Hamas will determine the fate of the political process, in the negative sense.  To prevent that outcome, Fatah will have to act vigorously against it and Israel will have to act with restraint, even in the face of an upsurge in terrorism.  To do that, both Fatah and Israel will need mutual incentives and political strength, the availability of which is very much in doubt.
 
 
 


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors. Originally posted at http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/12/hamas-at-annapolis.html. Please do link to these articles, quote from them and forward them by email to friends with this notice. Other uses require written permission of the author.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment



<< Home


FREE EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION
Subscribe to
ZNN
email newsletter for this site and others

Powered by groups.yahoo.com


Feedblitz subcription
To this Blog only

You can receive our articles by e-mail. For a free subscription, please enter your e-mail address:


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Web Logs & Sites

This Site

Zionism & Israel
Zionation Web Log
IMO Web Log (Dutch)

ZI Group
Zionism-Israel Pages
Israël-Palestina.Info (Dutch & English)
Israël in de Media
MidEastWeb Middle East News and Views
MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log

Brave Zionism
Israel: Like this, as if
Israel & Palestijnen Nieuws Blog

Friends and Partners
EinNews Israel
Israel Facts
Israel Proud Adam Holland
Middle East Analysis
Irene Lancaster's Diary
Middle East Analysis
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Israpundit
Israel Facts (NL)
Cynthia's Israel Adventure
Jeff Weintraub Commentaries and controversies
Meretz USA Weblog
Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers
Simply Jews
Fresno Zionism
Anti-Racist Blog
Sharona's Week
Z-Word Blog
Z-Word
Jewish State
Take A Pen - Israel Advocacy
Zionism on the Web
UN-Biased
ZOTW's Zionism and Israel News
Zionism On The Web News
ZOTW's Blogs
Christian Attitudes
Dr Ginosar Recalls
Zionism
Questions: Zionism anti-Zionism Israel & Palestine
Southern Wolf
Peace With Realism
Sanda's Place
Liberal for Israel
Realistic Dove
Blue Truth
Point of no Return
Christians Standing With Israel
Christians Standing With Israel - Blog
Liberticracia
CNPublications
SEO

Reference
Zionism
Anti-Semitism
Anti-Zionism
Encylopedic Dictionary of Zionism and Israel
Middle East Encyclopedia
Bible
Zionism and its Impact
Zionism & the creation of Israel
Zionism - Issues & answers
Maps of Israel
Christian Zionism Resources
Christian Zionism
Albert Einstein
Gaza & the Qassam Victims of Sderot
Islamism
Jihad
Zionist Quotes
Six Day War
Jew Hatred
Israel
Jew
Learn Hebrew
Arab-Israeli Conflict
International Zionism
Russian

Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
Israel Boycott
Boycott Israel?
Amnesty International Report on Gaza War
Boycott Israel?
Dutch Newspaper Reporting: A Study of NRC Handelsblad
Hamas (Dutch)
Dries van Agt (Dutch)
Experimental
Isfake lobby
Mysterology

At Zionism On the Web
Articles on Zionism
Anti-Zionism Information Center
Academic boycott of Israel Resource Center
The anti-Israel Hackers
Antisemitism Information Center
Zionism Israel and Apartheid
Middle East, Peace and War
The Palestine state
ZOTW Expert Search
ZOTW Forum

Judaica & Israel Gifts
Jewish Gifts: Judaica:
Ahava Products
Mezuzah

Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]


RSS V 1.0

International Affairs Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory