Palestinian Unity Deal

Some interesting commentary on yesterday's agreement between rival Palestinian movements Fatah and Hamas, as they announced a decision to reconcile and form an interim government ahead of elections, after a four-year feud.

Steve Clemons, at WashingtonNote:

Behind the scenes, Fatah and Hamas have been working and talking for years about terms of reconciliation. But their efforts were stymied by both their own suspicions and demands of each other -- but also by Omar Suleiman who was the anointed Egyptian peacemaker but who worked behind the scenes with the US to make sure that both sides never got to "yes" at the same time.

Now, Egypt is out of the game of working on one hand to appear supportive of a Palestinian unity government while on the other hand sabotaging it on behalf of the United States, and indirectly Israel.

Matt Yglesias, writing on the Israeli view of the Hamas-Fatah civil war:

Each of these positions has, on its own terms, been plausible. And as an Israeli tactical strategy for avoiding overwhelming political pressure to engage in serious negotiations and serious steps toward Palestinian statehood, it’s been incredibly successful.

But put in broader context, it looks an awful lot like a cross-party strategy for endless military domination of the West Bank. Politicians don’t want to explicitly endorse that vision, both because it would play poorly abroad and also because the domestic audience doesn’t seem to want to face up to what’s actually going on, so you see this affection for a shifting series of specific arguments about why now’s not the right time. Meanwhile, scenarios like the moral obscenity of Hebron and the construction of Jews-only highways through the West Bank continues apace even though nothing about Palestinian negotiating posture forces Israel to do these things. It’s become fashionable in left-wing Jewish American circles to argue that this kind of approach won’t work and will eventually cost Israel its international support. And maybe it will, but the reality is that American public opinion has become more strongly pro-Israeli even as Israeli conduct has become less defensible. The truth is that it’s morally wrong, whether or not it’s strategically viable.

From the horse's mouth, at least one of them:

Referring to the expected Fatah-Hamas unity deal, President Shimon Peres said on Thursday that the world could not support the foundation of a country, when part of the regime of which is a "bona fide terrorist organization.

"The move, as it stands, is a fatal mistake," Peres said, adding that a future Palestinian election could lead to a "terror organization ruling both Gaza and Judea and Samaria and the triumph of Hamas' policies."

Referring to the possible consequences of "walking hand in hand with a terror organization," the president said the reported unity deal "would lead to a regression and prevent the formation of a Palestinian state.

Peres added that the meaning of such a shift would be "continued rocket fire, the continued killing of innocent people, and the continuation of Iran's intervention, which supports and funds regional terror."

And finally, an excellent analysis from the editorial pages of Haaretz, tying in the status of the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, to the need for a formation of an independent, Palestinian state:

The weakness of the peace with Egypt and Jordan stems from the fact that the peace has only belonged to a few politicians, army officers, diplomats and a group of business people on both sides, while the gulf between peoples has continued. The main reason for this disconnect remains the public's criticism in the Arab countries of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in the territories. Arab public opinion is concerned about the Palestinians in the same way Diaspora Jews are concerned about Israel's welfare, peace and prosperity. Israel has a clear interest in broadening international public support for the peace agreements and ensuring their stability and development. To further that goal, it should also reach a peace accord with the Palestinians based on a partitioning of the land into two states.

Peace deals negotiated with only a few -- in part represented by a dictatorial, ruling elite.  Strategically viable positions, that are nothing less than morally wrong.  The opportunity to reach a peace accord between two peoples, by taking into account politically (and geographically) much larger problems.

Much to consider.  Take it all in.