BICOM

 Key points

• The announcement of a unity deal has caught the international community largely by surprise. The implications will depend on the details of what is agreed, which until now remain unclear. The final agreement is due to be signed by the leaders of the factions in Cairo next week.
• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has responded by urging the Palestinian Authority to choose peace with Israel over peace with Hamas, which is committed to Israel’s destruction. If the agreement proceeds, it is likely to end hopes for a resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and have negative consequences for cooperation in the West Bank between Israel and the PA.
• If the new government does not meet Quartet principles to renounce violence, accept previous agreements and recognise Israel, it will also impact the PA’s relationship with the US and the EU, its principle funders. In both the US and the EU Hamas is proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

What has been agreed?

• The terms of the deal are not yet clear and much will depend on what is actually agreed.
• The basis appears to be the agreement brokered by the Egyptians in October 2009, which was signed by Fatah but not by Hamas. However, senior Hamas officials have stated that there were changes in certain clauses. According to diplomatic sources, the minutes of yesterday’s meeting in Cairo will hold the same force as the original agreement, and could therefore change the shape of the agreement considerably. The core elements of the agreement appear to include:

o The formation of a 12-month caretaker government, comprised of technocrats unaffiliated to either faction. Salam Fayyad, who is respected internationally but lacking support in both factions, is not expected to remain Prime Minister.

o Parliamentary and Presidential elections to be held within a year as well as elections for the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the PLO.

o The formation of a Central Elections Committee and a special election court of twelve-judges that will oversee that elections are free and fair.

o The deal will apparently create a new supreme PLO committee at the top of the PLO’s structure, which will give Hamas representation in the Palestinian representative body.

o A joint security committee will be set up, though it is still unclear what would happen to Hamas’s extensive paramilitary infrastructure in Gaza and what role, if any, the PA security forces will have in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

o Both sides will release political detainees arrested in recent years.

Implications and reactions

• The implications will depend on the precise terms of the agreement, but Palestinian unity is likely to present a series of dilemmas to Israel, and international players.

Israel’s reaction

o Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved swiftly to urge the PA to choose peace with Israel over peace with Hamas, which is committed to Israel’s destruction. Should the government be formed, it is likely to end Netanyahu’s calls for the resumption of direct negotiations with the PA. It will remain to be seen how this impacts on Netanyahu’s plans to announce a diplomatic initiative in front of the US Congress towards the end of May.

o Israeli policy makers will also have to assess what level of contact and cooperation to extend to a unified PA that includes Hamas. If the agreement proceeds, it is likely to end the considerable Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation on the ground in the West Bank. This cooperation has been based on a shared agenda to suppress Hamas activity in the West Bank. If the PA begins releasing Hamas prisoners and coordinating security with Hamas, it will change the dynamic completely. This is likely to have very negative knock on effects for the broader state building programme in the West Bank, which is based on Israel relaxing security which limit movement and access. Other possible Israeli responses include holding back the transfer of tax revenues to the PA which it collects on their behalf.

International reaction

o International diplomats were taken by surprise by the announcement. Most assumed, as in Israel, that Palestinian unity was a distant prospect because of the deep ideological and political differences between Fatah and Hamas.

o When Hamas and Fatah formed a short-lived Palestinian unity government in 2007 it did not meet the Quartet conditions of renouncing violence, accepting previous agreements and recognising Israel; because of this it received only limited international cooperation, with Hamas representatives largely boycotted.

o As Hamas’s is designated in the EU and US as a terrorist organisation, the PA’s access to vital donor assistance would be called immediately into question. So to would the US-run programme to train and equip PA security forces.

o The initial US reaction came from National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, who reaffirmed the Quartet conditions, saying: ‘The United States supports Palestinian reconciliation on terms which promote the cause of peace,’ but adding, ‘Hamas, however, is a terrorist organization which targets civilians. To play a constructive role in achieving peace, any Palestinian government must… renounce violence, abide by past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.’

o Depending on the terms of the agreement, there are some in diplomatic and policy circles in Europe likely to argue for the international community to support the unity government, in the belief that Hamas can be moderated, and would ultimately accept Israel’s existence. This is not a view that is widely accepted in Israel or the US, where Hamas is more commonly viewed as a fundamentalist religious organisation, tied to Syria and Iran, whose opposition to Israel’s existence is irreversible.

Further Reading

BICOM Analysis: Would Palestinian unity help or hinder the peace process? – 18/10/2010