The Arab pinch on Palestinians to unite

Israel’s new ties with two Arab nations help push Hamas and Fatah toward holding an election that the Palestinian cause needs.

AP
A Palestinian girl takes part in a rally in support of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank town of Tubas, Sept. 2.

For years Israeli officials have complained that when it comes to making peace with the Palestinians, they have no one to talk to. Any potential counterparts, they argue, are either not unified, untrustworthy, or aggressive. The various Palestinian leaders have their own grievances about Israel’s intentions and its influence over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But this dysfunctional relationship could be set for a change.

In September, two Arab nations, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, normalized ties with Israel with the possibility of more to follow. Although not peace treaties like those brokered years ago with Egypt and Jordan, the so-called Abraham Accords give Israel new Arab recognition and economic ties. The Palestinian people, who have long relied on Arab support in their hope of gaining a homeland, must now wrestle with a critical question: Can their leaders work together, first in governance, and second in talks with Israel?

For years the two main Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, have been locked in a bitter rivalry. They are divided politically, ideologically, and territorially. Fatah, the heir of Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization, holds the presidency of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Hamas, the Islamist faction that is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel, won a parliamentary election for the Palestinian Authority in 2006 – the last time Palestinians went to the polls. Factional fighting after the election and failure to reach a power-sharing agreement resulted in a five-day war that put Gaza under Hamas control. The two sides have been stuck in a stalemate since then.

Fatah favors a negotiated peace with Israel. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Three years ago, it appeared to drop its longstanding call for Israel’s destruction but has waged a campaign of low-level violence against Israel across the Gaza border.

In July, the two factions began to draw closer in response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vow to annex large parts of the West Bank. Then came the UAE and Bahrain accords, which suspended Mr. Netanyahu’s annexation aims but opened new cracks in Arab-wide solidarity – hastening a Hamas-Fatah thaw. Last week the two factions agreed to hold elections within six months.

It is too soon to know if the agreement signals improved prospects for Palestinians. The historic roots of resistance against Israel run deep. Yet Arab youth across the Middle East – especially Palestinians – show growing political disinterest and disillusionment. Those who can pursue better lives elsewhere often do. Among the masses who cannot, some vent their frustrations through violence toward Israel or factional rivals. That underscores the urgency of the proposed election and an outcome that both sides will honor.

Hamas must break free of its ties to Iran while Fatah must put the social and economic welfare of Palestinians first. Their agreement is an opportunity to turn away from radical goals that have only left stalemate for decades. For its part, Israel should support the election.

Among the 2.2 million Palestinians who have the right to vote, an opportunity to express their aspirations through the ballot box is a welcome alternative to violence. And forging a united Palestinian government with a fresh mandate is an important first step in restarting a long-stalled peace process.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.