Some Interesting Developments
New PM in Palestine
Do you think the new PM and the unity government will restore the peace plan on track?
Monday, November 13, 2006
About Me
-
- Name: Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
- Simulation – II 12.45 -1:25 The new President of...
- Guidelines for Posting 1. When you sign off, use ...
- The Media Reports The media should file their rep...
- Give us some dirt! C. Rice and other members of ...
- Simulation: Quartet Meeting with Israel and its A...
- Simulation: Quartet Meeting with Arab and Palesti...
- Simulation: Pro-Palestine Group Please post you...
- Simulation: Pro-Israel Group Please post your co...
- Simulation: The Security Council Meeting Please ...
- Hopes for peace as Hamas agrees to truce Agreemen...
14 Comments:
I find the article interesting. I hate to sound skeptical, but I question if changing individuals in this conflict is likely to generate peace. Hopefully it will and I hope any individual who is supposed to lead this “unity” government will have the courage to make both the necessary political and policy risks to promote change. The article states “But the prospects of even forming such a government are closely linked with the question of whether the international community, in particular the US, would re-engage diplomatically and economically with coalition at the head of the PA.” I think this question is central to a solution. Individual players in this ordeal may or may not have the political courage to engage the United States to take a proactive role in the search for a solution. One statement which I found particularly interesting was the “implicit rather than explicit recognition of Israel.”
It sounds to me like the change in leadership won't really change much about the peace process. Even if the Hamas-led government is replaced by this "unity government", Shabir is said to be closer to Hamas than other Palestinian factions. I doubt he will gain trust and cooperation from the Israeli government unless he complies with their previous demands. The fact that he is remaining silent on his views on Israel leads me to believe that he may not be as cooperative with them as they'd hoped.
I think what is going to be most challenging for Shabir to gain international support is the fact that he has not shared opinions regarding Israel. Although he says he would approach the situation "realistically" i think that can have many connotations. Realistically compared to what? IF his realistic approach is what I would consider realistic, then it would be along the lines of, "i need to recognize Israel as a state so that I can have the sanctions lifted, help the palestinians and work towards some sort of peace." It is possible, but not "realistic" that this response would be Shabir's response.
I think change is a good thing, particularly when a governmnet is not doing a good enough job. However, as Jen mentioned, if his views are similar to Hamas'will it really be a drastic enough change to demand international attention and support? What really needs to occur is a policy change not a person change. If a new person brings a new policy, awesome. But if a new person presents a similar policy to one that is already not working, well then, what is the point?
I think nothing will be supported from an international level until action is actually taken. I think the US, Israel and other countries will hold off until something actually changes. Until then, it will be a new leader with an old agenda not gaining any support from the international community.
After following the tumultuous struggle to form a Palestinian Unity government between Hamas and Fatah over the past months, just the concept of a compromise sounds nearly too good to be believable. Even as their politicians have wrangled over a common political platform, factions of Hamas and Fatah have been engaging each other in countless armed clashes; often deadly.
When I searched the Al-Jazeera archives with only the words “Fatah and Hamas” for the past 10 months, the first 15 out of 20 results were articles describing armed clashes between the two factions. The fact of the matter is that the core principles of both groups are fundamentally different and that reaching an accord on a Unity government will be nearly impossible with both Hamas and Fatah officials vying for significant power.
This individual, Mohammed Shabir, could be the Palestinian government’s best hope for ending the Palestinian Authority’s current pariah status in the West. The United States and Israel’s ability to exert overbearing influence on Palestinian affairs is a debate for another time, but the fact of the matter is that at this moment in time, the Israeli-American leadership holds the majority of the negotiating power; they are strangling the newly born Palestinian government in order to undermine Hamas’ negotiating position.
The fact on the ground is that the Israeli government can essentially make any Palestinian government, whose views fall too closely with that of Hamas’ platform, suffer and die. A non-political, secular figure such as Mohammed Shabir may be the Palestinians best hope for relaxing the Western funding freeze and creating a functional Unity Government that the Israeli powers-at-be don’t find disconcerting enough to disrupt.
Perhaps a unity government can give meaning to negotiations with Palestine. Up till now, negotiations with Palestine would either feature all Palestinian parties [rarely], which would make the Israeli side feel outnumbered, or only the groups that the Israeli government had not written off as terrorist, which would make the Palestinian side feel unheard and cheated. Of course, this unity government only features Fatah and Hamas without other groups which are still seen as radical, so the problem of legitimacy will not go away so easily. Furthermore, if Israel is pessimistic about the reorganization, it will still withold the taxes collected on behalf of the PA, which is a lesser cause of Palestinian resentment, and worse, these "security" massacres may continue, which will almost guarantee a renewal of war. This new governmental structure is at least a step in the right direction, but it is ultimately up to Israel to stop the fighting.
I feel that an unfair amount of pressure is being placed squarely on the Palestinians to make concessions. The “international community” insists “that they will only deal with the PA if its recognizes Israel, renounces violence and abides by all agreements made by the Fatah-led predecessor authority.” However the sixty million dollars Israel withholds a month from the Palestinians is close to political black mail. I feel that Hamas’ unwillingness to recognize Israel is a roadblock to peace because Israel is not going anywhere and it must be acknowledged sooner or later for there to be any peace but I also believe the fact that Israel itself is a much larger obstacle to peace. If a new Prime Minster and Unity Government can free up the money being withheld from the Palestinian people than I think the Palestinians could benefit from new government but in the end Israel is the one that must renounce retaliatory strikes, settlement building and agree to abide by all UN resolutions for there to be any peace plan.
First of all, I’d like to say that it is very admirable of Ishmail Haniyeh to step down if he feels he is an obstacle to lifting of the economic blockade of the Palestinian Authority.. But, if he feels that way, that why wouldn’t he change his politics to be less of an obstacle, and therefore be one less road block thus fostering more peace in the region, but that’s just my suggestion.
From the article, Mr. Shabir seems to be a very promising leader for the PA. It seems like his approach to leadership of the PA would be not only beneficial to the Palestinian people, but the international community’s view on them as well. The coalition govt will hopefully be able to negotiate better with the US, and UN, and bring more peace to the region.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
as Geoffrey commented on, i'm quite skeptical as well if changing the head of the PA would be a legitmate chance to further the peace process. I do feel that it will be good to have a person in charge that does not fully identify himself as Hammas. The main factor in this peace process that will be important, will be to make sure that hammas doesn't continue use or enlarge it's military forces. As the article says, Israel still believes that Hammas will control all aspects of life. Although Shabbas is closer to Hammas than other factions, I think in order to have this be a successful transition he will have to make it clear to all parties (Hammas, Fatah, etc...) that this will not be a militaristic peace negotiation but rather one that is a valiant attempt at a resolution. I commend Hammas and the current head of the PA for being willing to step down if it were for the better of Palestinians!
Although I agree with most of the previous comments on the limited effectiveness of individual actors in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I also think that individuals can play key roles in conflict resolution. Many people have commented that they don’t think changing the head of the PA will create a legitimate chance to restore the peace process and they back this position with the reasoning that the individual is simply the face of the organizations that they represent. Although the face has changed, the motives and force behind the face remains mostly unchanged. However, I believe that important steps can be taken with a simple change of face. Given that Shabir does is not an official Hamas representative he will give the PA and Israel an opportunity to make implicit agreements that will not involve Hamas officially dealing with Israel and vise-versa. Although these agreements won’t be the final solution, they will at least be creating the foundations for further explicit agreements.
Like other posters I tend to be skeptical as well. Both Palestinian and Israeli leaders have changed over the years and there is still no lasting peace. Ultimately it comes down to the role of the United States and how forcefully we will push the peace process along. If President Bush holds a summit similar to that of President Clinton then yes the leadership change will have a difference. But that seems unlikely with the president and the American public focused on Iraq. For a peace deal to be brokered the U.S. must do more than empty rhetoric and realize that neither side is completely right or wrong.
I believe that the mere possibility of current Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh stepping down in favor of someone that is not a member of Hamas such as Mohammed Shabir is extremely significant in its own right. Up to this point, both sides in the latest phase pf the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have been unwilling to be the first to offer concessions with Israel withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue and Hamas refusing to recognize the Jewish state. If Mr. Shabir or another person that is not a member of Hamas or Fatah were to become Palestinian Prime Minister, Hamas would appear to be killing two birds with one stone because the move would be part of a compromise on both the domestic and internationals fronts, where they are currently involved in conflict. Since I do not know a great deal about Mr. Shabir, I must be pessimistic. I do not believe that Mr. Shabir, stated in the article as a U.S.-educated technocrat, is the man that will single-handedly revive the peace negotiations. However, the process of this potential unification that would result in his appointment is more essential to reigniting the peace talks than the actual man himself.
If Fatah, under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas can present a truly unified government to the world, than the hopes for peace will lie squarely on the shoulders of Israel and the United States, as is reiterated in the article. The unity government would almost undoubtedly implicitly recognize Israel along the lines of the “prisoner agreement” rather than explicitly. The U.S. therefore would have to retract its previous position that any Palestinian government must explicitly recognize Israel before the hundreds of millions of dollars owed to the Palestinians would be unfrozen and any thoughts of reconciliation could begin. While the Bush administration has poor track records in regards to admitting any mistakes, the recent “resignation” (firing) of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and openness to change in Iraq give hope that there is some chance of flexibility from the man famous for what has been dubbed “cowboy diplomacy”. Israel might be willing to show flexibility as well for two reasons. First, it is still reeling from the outrage over the civilian causalities inflicted on the Palestinians during the latest Gaza incursions that failed to halt the rocket fire on its territory. The second is that Israel is becoming ever more terrified by the dialogue inside the U.S. that links the various problems in the Middle East such as the turmoil in Iraq and the Iranian nuclear program with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the unity government is definitely a step it the right direction, history unfortunately does not favor the optimists.
I agree that while it couldn't hurt to try someone new, I don't see this proposed shift in leadership as making any real difference.
I really believe that the major obstacle here is the refusal of the PA to recognize Israel. And I think Israel is taking advantage of this. They know how reluctant the PA is to recognizing them, so by asserting this demand, they are giving themselves an excuse not to make concessions.
It may not be "fair," but I think the Palestinians need to concede on that one issue, just so things can progress. I think the possible gains would far outweigh the losses for the PA. And if Israel still withholds the duties and continues to refuse to negotiate, the PA can go back to not recognizing them. It's worth a try.
I find it entirely ridiculous and hypocritical that Hamas, moments after its election victory, was labeled illegitimate and a pariah to the ever perpetuating Palestinian and Israeli conflict. Furthermore, I also think that Israel is just making any excuse to prevent the negotiation of any significant and progressive compromises. Right now, the Israeli government cites Hamas and the repudiation of Israel’s legitimacy as the obstacles in the possibility to make a deal. To any rational being, the notion that Israel is not a legitimate nation is entirely illogical. It has a capital, an infrastructure and the list goes on. Hamas’ charter that states Israel is illegitimate is simply effusive rhetoric that is there to standout and provoke exposure. An interesting point was that not even most of Hamas’ senior members knew that the charter said that Israel was illegitimate. When your cities are replete with humanitarian crises and your populations are subjected to a draconian apartheid rule, it is understandable that all a people would have is their language and mind. In an interpreted bastardization of Ghandi’s quote, “You may have my body, but not my obedience,” the Palestinians that impugn Israel’s legitimacy are just doing it for the sake of defiance. This new PM could be a great idea for Hamas and the peace process as well. Considering he is not a member of Hamas, Israel cannot deny him via the Hamas cold shoulder technique. If things can get rolling and the Palestinians are offered something along the lines of the 1967 borders and INCLUDING East Jerusalem, there will be peace…until the next war. I hope I do not sound too pessimistic.
Post a Comment
<< Home