The announcement of a Palestinian unity government, ending the disastrous seven-year long schism, has been greeted by most of the world as a positive step. The United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and many others have voiced their conditional support for the new Hamas-inclusive government--the condition being that the new government maintain peaceful relations with Israel. Despite the unexpected support for the new unity arrangement by the United States, Israel--now continuing a forty-seven year occupation--has rejected it. It will be important for supporters of the unity deal to put together cogent strategies of engagement, hopefully with some level of coordination and with clear goals in mind.
First, it will take a sober assessment of the limits of the agreement. There are still aspects of the agreement that remain to be negotiated and more still that remain to be implemented. The positive news thus far is that both of the primary parties--Fatah and Hamas--remain committed to the difficult tasks ahead. The most challenging issues appear to be negotiating the new security arrangements and effective reimbursement of public sector employee salaries. That being said, the new status quo is still fragile, and there are sure to be numerous attempts at spoiling the process, be they provocations from Israel or armed Palestinian groups. Those international allies currently supporting the unity effort would do well to prepare response to such attempts with conflict resolution-oriented efforts that emphasizes patience and consensus. If unity is the first step toward a transition from occupation to independence--and I do believe this is very much possible however far away--then it is time to focus on Palestinian institutions now rather than wait for the ever elusive silver-bullet style agreement.
In terms of vision, Palestinian factions are calling for parliamentary and presidential elections, despite details about said processes still up for negotiation. It is imperative to support these elections to give Palestinian unity a legitimacy that relies on popular representation rather than elite bargaining. Furthermore, the international community should reflect on their reaction to the 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power. At the time, the results of the 2006 elections were driven by disillusionment with Fatah (which came to be defined by endemic corruption and political impotence) and Hamas' popularity (which stemmed from social services and the perception of purity due to their previous political aloofness).
Much has changed since 2006. While Hamas' governance in Gaza is likely widely-recognized as a failure, the asterisk of international isolation and Israel's blockade hangs over it. Fatah on the other hand, though little has been done to confront the perception of corruption, seems to have reclaimed some legitimacy in its pursuit of statehood. Prior to 2006 (and for some time after) Fatah and the PLO were viewed as impotent and out of touch when it came to achieving Palestinian national goals. Today, I think it's safe to say they have regained more credibility due to their unilateral moves at the UN.
Regardless of the victor, the international community should be prepared to accept the outcome rather than boycott and defund as they did in 2006. Though their relationship with the Palestinian Authority should no doubt be reconsidered during political upheavals they should attempt to do so in ways that do not further contribute result in the type of social upheaval seen in 2007. The frailty of the Palestinian Authority seems more widely acknowledged these days, so such a path is fortunately much less likely.
The real place for international actors however should be as far removed from matters of legitimacy as possible. Specifically, pro-democracy, pro-peace actors like the United States, European Union, and the United Nations can get back to much needed development projects emphasizing the rule of law and economic development. The Palestinian Authority's legitimacy under Fatah was largely eroded as their autocratic tendencies began to be viewed--rightly or wrongly--as part of a collaborative effort to appease Israeli concerns. Facilitating good governance in the Palestinian Authority through reform of corrupt, opaque, and abuse-prone institutions will serve to empower a moderate, politically-engaged civil society that would further the cause of peace far more than the typically and eternally failing negotiation efforts that international actors have heretofore shown myopic loyalty.
First, it will take a sober assessment of the limits of the agreement. There are still aspects of the agreement that remain to be negotiated and more still that remain to be implemented. The positive news thus far is that both of the primary parties--Fatah and Hamas--remain committed to the difficult tasks ahead. The most challenging issues appear to be negotiating the new security arrangements and effective reimbursement of public sector employee salaries. That being said, the new status quo is still fragile, and there are sure to be numerous attempts at spoiling the process, be they provocations from Israel or armed Palestinian groups. Those international allies currently supporting the unity effort would do well to prepare response to such attempts with conflict resolution-oriented efforts that emphasizes patience and consensus. If unity is the first step toward a transition from occupation to independence--and I do believe this is very much possible however far away--then it is time to focus on Palestinian institutions now rather than wait for the ever elusive silver-bullet style agreement.
In terms of vision, Palestinian factions are calling for parliamentary and presidential elections, despite details about said processes still up for negotiation. It is imperative to support these elections to give Palestinian unity a legitimacy that relies on popular representation rather than elite bargaining. Furthermore, the international community should reflect on their reaction to the 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power. At the time, the results of the 2006 elections were driven by disillusionment with Fatah (which came to be defined by endemic corruption and political impotence) and Hamas' popularity (which stemmed from social services and the perception of purity due to their previous political aloofness).
Much has changed since 2006. While Hamas' governance in Gaza is likely widely-recognized as a failure, the asterisk of international isolation and Israel's blockade hangs over it. Fatah on the other hand, though little has been done to confront the perception of corruption, seems to have reclaimed some legitimacy in its pursuit of statehood. Prior to 2006 (and for some time after) Fatah and the PLO were viewed as impotent and out of touch when it came to achieving Palestinian national goals. Today, I think it's safe to say they have regained more credibility due to their unilateral moves at the UN.
Regardless of the victor, the international community should be prepared to accept the outcome rather than boycott and defund as they did in 2006. Though their relationship with the Palestinian Authority should no doubt be reconsidered during political upheavals they should attempt to do so in ways that do not further contribute result in the type of social upheaval seen in 2007. The frailty of the Palestinian Authority seems more widely acknowledged these days, so such a path is fortunately much less likely.
The real place for international actors however should be as far removed from matters of legitimacy as possible. Specifically, pro-democracy, pro-peace actors like the United States, European Union, and the United Nations can get back to much needed development projects emphasizing the rule of law and economic development. The Palestinian Authority's legitimacy under Fatah was largely eroded as their autocratic tendencies began to be viewed--rightly or wrongly--as part of a collaborative effort to appease Israeli concerns. Facilitating good governance in the Palestinian Authority through reform of corrupt, opaque, and abuse-prone institutions will serve to empower a moderate, politically-engaged civil society that would further the cause of peace far more than the typically and eternally failing negotiation efforts that international actors have heretofore shown myopic loyalty.
No comments:
Post a Comment