What does the Gilad Shalit deal really mean?
The Gilad Shalit exchange means a great deal for the released prisoners and their families. But in the larger picture, it won't bring much change.
(Page 2 of 2)
Could Hamas, whose popularity has faded in Gaza since it swept elections in 2005, dramatically improve its position thanks to the deal? It's hard to see a huge change in its political position. For years, the group had insisted that a number of prominent Palestinian prisoners would have to be included in any deal for Shalit, most importantly Marwan Barghouti. Mr. Barghouti is probably the Fatah official with the most credibility on the street in the West Bank, and his release would have certainly shaken up Palestinian politics. But he remains in Israeli prison, serving a life sentence on a murder charge.Skip to next paragraph
The Arab League observer mission in Syria is likely to fail
Egypt's military rulers crack down on democracy groups
Iran's threats over Strait of Hormuz? Understandable, but not easy
Eastern Libya poll indicates political Islam will closely follow democracy
Iraq's Maliki threatens, Sunnis grumble, and Baghdad goes boom
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
In 2008, Israel and Hamas neared a day on Shalit's release, then as now with the involvement of Cairo. But the proposed deal fell apart over Barghouti. Why Hamas was more willing to compromise on that issue now is unclear. But Barghouti would have been the big prize, not least because a major Fatah leader would have been indebted to the group, raising the prospects of meaningful reconciliation.
Now, while there will certainly be some good will for Hamas generated by the release, the structural problem for the organization in Gaza remains. Once seen as a clean-handed alternative to the Fatah kleptocrats they replaced, Hamas itself has grown increasingly thuggish and alienated many Gazans. Emblematic was their attempt to ban celebrations of the popular call by Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas for Palestinian statehood at the UN, with Palestinian flags taken from crowds in Gaza, demonstrators roughed up, and some supporters of the bid arrested.
Hamas has also banned Gaza students from traveling to the US to study, and has engaged in the same sorts of patronage that turned so many Gazans against Fatah when they were running the strip. In a June poll, the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research found that just 29 percent of Palestinians would vote for Hamas if new elections were held, with 45 percent throwing their support behind Fatah. In the 2005 parliamentary elections, Hamas crushed Fatah – taking 76 seats in the 132 member legislature against 43 for Fatah.
Further afield, Hamas' reliance on support from Syria, with much of its leadership living in Damascus, has hurt the group's image. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's bloody anti-democracy crackdown has left Hamas dependent on a patron that most Arabs abhor and whose position is certain to be weakened, whatever the outcome of the struggle for democracy in Syria.
And what of Egypt's relationship with Israel? Yes, Egypt played an important role in this deal – which has led some to see the prospects of an improving Egyptian-Israeli relationship after a rocky year in which former President Hosni Mubarak fell, Egyptian troops were shot by Israeli ones along the border, and the Israeli embassy in Cairo shut after it was breached by an angry group of protesters. But public anti-Israeli sentiment in Egypt is going to continue to be expressed. While a permanent rupture doesn't seem likely soon, neither does a return to the cozy security cooperation of the Mubarak years.