Palestine: The spectre of civil war
Fears of a bloody showdown among Palestinians
“THE Arab world’s only true democracy,” is how Palestinians are fond of calling their quasi-state. But its democratic credentials are being sorely tested. In an angry speech on December 16th, Mahmoud Abbas, the president, frustrated by months of failure to broker a unity government for the Palestinian Authority (PA) between his own secular Fatah party and the ruling Islamists of Hamas, called for new presidential and parliamentary elections. Next day he asked the elections commission to make preparations.
Hamas, which won control of parliament only in January, calls this a coup d’état. Another phrase might be “empty threat”. The Basic Law, a rough sort of constitution, says Mr Abbas can appoint or dismiss a prime minister but says nothing about dissolving parliament or calling new elections. His advisers are trying out devious ways around this drawback: Azzam al-Ahmad, Fatah’s parliamentary leader, claims Mr Abbas can do anything the Basic Law does not expressly forbid, and, since it says he cannot dissolve parliament during a state of emergency, he can therefore do it at other times.
Legal niceties, though, will not be a deciding factor. Guns may. Factional violence in the Gaza Strip, the smaller bit of a would-be Palestinian state, has risen since unknown gunmen last week killed the three young sons of a PA security official from Fatah. In the murky world of Gazan feuds, the murder could have been political, personal or both; it prompted a series of attacks on Hamas figures, including the prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, and the foreign minister, Mahmoud Zahar. Fatah militants have also taken over two ministries in Gaza. Hamas has launched its own reprisals at Fatah targets, and both groups have shot at each other’s public rallies in both the West Bank and Gaza, wounding dozens of unarmed bystanders. A ceasefire signed on December 17th lasted only a few hours before clashes resumed.
Both sides have tens of thousands of armed men at their disposal. Fatah is now trying to impose the same relatively strong discipline on its fractious militias as Hamas has over its own; Muhammad Dahlan, a Fatah man who is Gaza’s former security chief, has been brought back out of disfavour to help. Moreover, in both Gaza and the West Bank, ordinary citizens have been arming themselves against the rising lawlessness. Spokesmen for both sides say, as they always do, that “the Palestinian people” will not let a civil war develop. Conciliation has indeed prevailed after such clashes in the past. But things have never been so volatile, the guns so plentiful and the forces so large as now.
If the violence can be contained, then the other deciding factor may be public opinion. Mr Abbas seems to be making up his strategy as he goes along, but one that is taking shape is to give talks on a unity government one last try and, if they fail, to call a referendum on new elections. A poll held just before Mr Abbas’s speech, by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, found that 61% want early elections. But it also gave Fatah only a slight lead over Hamas, which could turn into a loss if, as happened last time, Hamas proves better organised at the district level.
Hamas, for its part, is counting on being able to make voters stay away from the parliamentary election. “One fatwa from the mosques will make everybody adhere to the party’s recommendations,” says Yazid Khader, director-general of the PA’s information ministry. But it could still field a presidential candidate, and last week’s poll put Mr Abbas just a point ahead of Mr Haniyeh in such a contest.
Both sides still say they want a unity government; they differ on the programme. For Mr Abbas, it should accept the foreign donors’ three conditions for ending their boycott of the PA—recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and adherence to previously signed agreements. Hamas spokesmen say that merely achieving a unity government, perhaps with a watered-down form of the conditions, will be enough to make some donor countries (particularly some conscience-stricken Europeans) break the embargo.
But talks have failed so far mainly because neither side obviously benefits from sharing power: Hamas would relinquish control, Fatah would take on responsibility, and the donors have never shown any flexibility on the three conditions to entice them towards a deal. Moreover, Mr Haniyeh, once a relative moderate in Hamas, now seems to have thrown his lot in with Iran, returning from a Middle East tour with pledges of hefty financial support. If he can smuggle the money in, Mr Abbas’s threats will ring even emptier.
“THE Arab world’s only true democracy,” is how Palestinians are fond of calling their quasi-state. But its democratic credentials are being sorely tested. In an angry speech on December 16th, Mahmoud Abbas, the president, frustrated by months of failure to broker a unity government for the Palestinian Authority (PA) between his own secular Fatah party and the ruling Islamists of Hamas, called for new presidential and parliamentary elections. Next day he asked the elections commission to make preparations.
Hamas, which won control of parliament only in January, calls this a coup d’état. Another phrase might be “empty threat”. The Basic Law, a rough sort of constitution, says Mr Abbas can appoint or dismiss a prime minister but says nothing about dissolving parliament or calling new elections. His advisers are trying out devious ways around this drawback: Azzam al-Ahmad, Fatah’s parliamentary leader, claims Mr Abbas can do anything the Basic Law does not expressly forbid, and, since it says he cannot dissolve parliament during a state of emergency, he can therefore do it at other times.
Legal niceties, though, will not be a deciding factor. Guns may. Factional violence in the Gaza Strip, the smaller bit of a would-be Palestinian state, has risen since unknown gunmen last week killed the three young sons of a PA security official from Fatah. In the murky world of Gazan feuds, the murder could have been political, personal or both; it prompted a series of attacks on Hamas figures, including the prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, and the foreign minister, Mahmoud Zahar. Fatah militants have also taken over two ministries in Gaza. Hamas has launched its own reprisals at Fatah targets, and both groups have shot at each other’s public rallies in both the West Bank and Gaza, wounding dozens of unarmed bystanders. A ceasefire signed on December 17th lasted only a few hours before clashes resumed.
Both sides have tens of thousands of armed men at their disposal. Fatah is now trying to impose the same relatively strong discipline on its fractious militias as Hamas has over its own; Muhammad Dahlan, a Fatah man who is Gaza’s former security chief, has been brought back out of disfavour to help. Moreover, in both Gaza and the West Bank, ordinary citizens have been arming themselves against the rising lawlessness. Spokesmen for both sides say, as they always do, that “the Palestinian people” will not let a civil war develop. Conciliation has indeed prevailed after such clashes in the past. But things have never been so volatile, the guns so plentiful and the forces so large as now.
If the violence can be contained, then the other deciding factor may be public opinion. Mr Abbas seems to be making up his strategy as he goes along, but one that is taking shape is to give talks on a unity government one last try and, if they fail, to call a referendum on new elections. A poll held just before Mr Abbas’s speech, by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, found that 61% want early elections. But it also gave Fatah only a slight lead over Hamas, which could turn into a loss if, as happened last time, Hamas proves better organised at the district level.
Hamas, for its part, is counting on being able to make voters stay away from the parliamentary election. “One fatwa from the mosques will make everybody adhere to the party’s recommendations,” says Yazid Khader, director-general of the PA’s information ministry. But it could still field a presidential candidate, and last week’s poll put Mr Abbas just a point ahead of Mr Haniyeh in such a contest.
Both sides still say they want a unity government; they differ on the programme. For Mr Abbas, it should accept the foreign donors’ three conditions for ending their boycott of the PA—recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and adherence to previously signed agreements. Hamas spokesmen say that merely achieving a unity government, perhaps with a watered-down form of the conditions, will be enough to make some donor countries (particularly some conscience-stricken Europeans) break the embargo.
But talks have failed so far mainly because neither side obviously benefits from sharing power: Hamas would relinquish control, Fatah would take on responsibility, and the donors have never shown any flexibility on the three conditions to entice them towards a deal. Moreover, Mr Haniyeh, once a relative moderate in Hamas, now seems to have thrown his lot in with Iran, returning from a Middle East tour with pledges of hefty financial support. If he can smuggle the money in, Mr Abbas’s threats will ring even emptier.
posted by Marko at 12/19/2006 08:45:00 AM
<< Home