Hamas-Fatah Standoff: The internal Intifada
The fragile peace in the Palestinian territories is now on the brink of a complete break down considering the infighting and violence of the last few days. The two warring factions – Fatah and Hamas had been eyeballing each other for a few months now, but the latest increase in skirmishes between armed gunmen of the two sides has got the disastrous prospect of a civil strife in the making. Hamas, the radical political and para-military party is made up of renegade Palestinians hell bent on destroying Israel and take back the holy city of Jerusalem, which is effectively under Israeli control. Having transformed from a militant para-military force to a political player in the turbulent world of Palestinian politics yielded reach results as they stormed the parliamentary elections in January and formed a majority government. In doing so, they also replaced the corrupt and ineffective government of the Fatah party whose founder was the legendary leader Yasser Arafat.
The bad blood between the two sides is nothing new. Both sides have argued on which of the two stands of the genuine interests of the Palestinian people. Fatah, though with a para-military force of its own, has been taking the more moderate view on how Palestine should deal with Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, have adopted a more radical approach, with their charter calling or the destruction of Israel and the return of Palestinian land from the Jordanian border to the Mediterranean. Both sides, unfortunately, have not lived up to the expectations of its people. Fatah has been given repeated mandates, both while being led by Arafat and also after his demise, only to get neck deep into corruption and also having to fend of allegations of being subservient to Israel and the US in its dealings for Palestinian statehood. This fear of looking like “sellouts” had an unfortunate outcome with Arafat breaking away from the potentially path breaking talks with President Clinton and then Israeli PM Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000 in order to strike a better bargain for the Palestinians. Many Western analysts regard it as a colossus failure on the part of Arafat to have walked away in 2000. However, many Arab and Middle Eastern analysts do offer a different version of the events of that fateful summit. That apart, the Hamas victory in January completely shook Western establishments and Israel as they faced their enemy as a democratically elected government. With their strong mandate and a good humanitarian track record, Hamas has been adopting a confrontationalist attitude towards the Israelis for any negotiations. The peace talks further broke down with the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit by the Palestinians in June this year that led to a tense standoff between the two sides. Since then the Western governments have been backing the moderate President of the Palestinian territories, Mahmud Abbas (also the leader of the Fatah). In doing so, they have side stepped any dealings with Hamas and it’s Prime Minister Ismail Hanieyah. Pointedly, here lies the genesis of the current problem.
The West has been a vocal advocate of democracy and has used that pretext to overthrow Saddam. The White House has made is clear that the democratization of the Middle East is important for world peace. But quite paradoxically, when any Arab country or in this case the Palestinian people legitimately chose a government then the West has no right to complain. However, this is not the first example of the West influencing a country to “help” them choose their leaders. The now reviled former leader of Chile, late General Augusto Pinochet received American support after the Communist Party installed Salvador Allende as the nation’s president. Henry Kissinger at the time had remarked rather caustically, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." With such an approach to foreign policy, it is little wonder that the same is being replicated in the Middle East policy of the the US. By actively backing Abbas and his call for early elections, the West have furthered the tensions between Hamas and Fatah. Also, with both sides retaining their para-military forces, the violent infighting is the logical yet tragic outcome.
Any freedom movement or nationalist struggle remains viable till all the players toe the same line after due consensus. The Palestinian issue has been one without any solutions for over half a century thanks to the differing opinions and the ensuing violence that succeedes it. Today, it is the Hamas, tomorrow it might be another political entity. The Paelstinians must speak in unison in what their demands are and more importantly the West must heed the democratic voice of the electroate. The subvsersion of any mandate is nothing short of arm twisting democrarcy to suit one’s needs.
The current stand off, which has resulted because of the declaration of early elections by President Abbas, also has the imprint of the regional powers pushing their vested interests. Iran, whether the US likes it or not, has emerged as the single dominant force in the Middle East, having overtaken Saudi Arabia for the coveted title. Iran now has a say in all the flash points in the Middle East including Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestine issue. Their active support for Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon has helped it in its talks on Iran’s nuclear program. Their influence being so strong in Iraq and Lebanon that the West has no option but to talk to them, a foreign policy no-no till a few years back. Iran, ironically, has the US to thank for its sudden elevation in stature as a fallout of the Iraq invasion. Now, with support to Hamas and in doing so thumbing the nose of the Israelis, it is truly having the last laugh. However, it is important for the Palestinians to realise how much of a friend is Iran to their cause or is it using the emotive issue of Palestine to raise its standing in the wider Muslim world. If indeed the Palestinain street supports Iran and its machinations, peace may be distant, also, if the reality is the latter, then the political establishment of Palestine must charter into taking control of their foreign affairs rather than have Iran coverlty push its own agenda. While those may be long term policy objectives of Palestinian politics, in the interim it is important for the infighting to stop and a government of national unity be formed to help Palestinian movement move out of the unending cycle of violence peppered with moments of peace. The longer this fighting festers the more dangerous the world becomes. Sadly, this numbing truth seems to be falling on deaf ears in Gaza and the West Bank.
The fragile peace in the Palestinian territories is now on the brink of a complete break down considering the infighting and violence of the last few days. The two warring factions – Fatah and Hamas had been eyeballing each other for a few months now, but the latest increase in skirmishes between armed gunmen of the two sides has got the disastrous prospect of a civil strife in the making. Hamas, the radical political and para-military party is made up of renegade Palestinians hell bent on destroying Israel and take back the holy city of Jerusalem, which is effectively under Israeli control. Having transformed from a militant para-military force to a political player in the turbulent world of Palestinian politics yielded reach results as they stormed the parliamentary elections in January and formed a majority government. In doing so, they also replaced the corrupt and ineffective government of the Fatah party whose founder was the legendary leader Yasser Arafat.
The bad blood between the two sides is nothing new. Both sides have argued on which of the two stands of the genuine interests of the Palestinian people. Fatah, though with a para-military force of its own, has been taking the more moderate view on how Palestine should deal with Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, have adopted a more radical approach, with their charter calling or the destruction of Israel and the return of Palestinian land from the Jordanian border to the Mediterranean. Both sides, unfortunately, have not lived up to the expectations of its people. Fatah has been given repeated mandates, both while being led by Arafat and also after his demise, only to get neck deep into corruption and also having to fend of allegations of being subservient to Israel and the US in its dealings for Palestinian statehood. This fear of looking like “sellouts” had an unfortunate outcome with Arafat breaking away from the potentially path breaking talks with President Clinton and then Israeli PM Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000 in order to strike a better bargain for the Palestinians. Many Western analysts regard it as a colossus failure on the part of Arafat to have walked away in 2000. However, many Arab and Middle Eastern analysts do offer a different version of the events of that fateful summit. That apart, the Hamas victory in January completely shook Western establishments and Israel as they faced their enemy as a democratically elected government. With their strong mandate and a good humanitarian track record, Hamas has been adopting a confrontationalist attitude towards the Israelis for any negotiations. The peace talks further broke down with the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit by the Palestinians in June this year that led to a tense standoff between the two sides. Since then the Western governments have been backing the moderate President of the Palestinian territories, Mahmud Abbas (also the leader of the Fatah). In doing so, they have side stepped any dealings with Hamas and it’s Prime Minister Ismail Hanieyah. Pointedly, here lies the genesis of the current problem.
The West has been a vocal advocate of democracy and has used that pretext to overthrow Saddam. The White House has made is clear that the democratization of the Middle East is important for world peace. But quite paradoxically, when any Arab country or in this case the Palestinian people legitimately chose a government then the West has no right to complain. However, this is not the first example of the West influencing a country to “help” them choose their leaders. The now reviled former leader of Chile, late General Augusto Pinochet received American support after the Communist Party installed Salvador Allende as the nation’s president. Henry Kissinger at the time had remarked rather caustically, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." With such an approach to foreign policy, it is little wonder that the same is being replicated in the Middle East policy of the the US. By actively backing Abbas and his call for early elections, the West have furthered the tensions between Hamas and Fatah. Also, with both sides retaining their para-military forces, the violent infighting is the logical yet tragic outcome.
Any freedom movement or nationalist struggle remains viable till all the players toe the same line after due consensus. The Palestinian issue has been one without any solutions for over half a century thanks to the differing opinions and the ensuing violence that succeedes it. Today, it is the Hamas, tomorrow it might be another political entity. The Paelstinians must speak in unison in what their demands are and more importantly the West must heed the democratic voice of the electroate. The subvsersion of any mandate is nothing short of arm twisting democrarcy to suit one’s needs.
The current stand off, which has resulted because of the declaration of early elections by President Abbas, also has the imprint of the regional powers pushing their vested interests. Iran, whether the US likes it or not, has emerged as the single dominant force in the Middle East, having overtaken Saudi Arabia for the coveted title. Iran now has a say in all the flash points in the Middle East including Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestine issue. Their active support for Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon has helped it in its talks on Iran’s nuclear program. Their influence being so strong in Iraq and Lebanon that the West has no option but to talk to them, a foreign policy no-no till a few years back. Iran, ironically, has the US to thank for its sudden elevation in stature as a fallout of the Iraq invasion. Now, with support to Hamas and in doing so thumbing the nose of the Israelis, it is truly having the last laugh. However, it is important for the Palestinians to realise how much of a friend is Iran to their cause or is it using the emotive issue of Palestine to raise its standing in the wider Muslim world. If indeed the Palestinain street supports Iran and its machinations, peace may be distant, also, if the reality is the latter, then the political establishment of Palestine must charter into taking control of their foreign affairs rather than have Iran coverlty push its own agenda. While those may be long term policy objectives of Palestinian politics, in the interim it is important for the infighting to stop and a government of national unity be formed to help Palestinian movement move out of the unending cycle of violence peppered with moments of peace. The longer this fighting festers the more dangerous the world becomes. Sadly, this numbing truth seems to be falling on deaf ears in Gaza and the West Bank.
posted by Karan Thakur @ 5:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home