With one-third of the Palestinians' Hamas-led government now under arrest by Israel, the escalation in Israeli-Palestinian relations has moved beyond military confrontation. A far more fundamental question has come into view: can a Palestinian government that draws its authority from an agreement with Israel stay in power when it is led by an organization committed to the destruction of Israel?
The abduction of an Israeli soldier in the Gaza Strip, as well as the abduction and subsequent murder of an 18-year-old Israeli civilian in the West Bank, have brought to the fore that question, which has haunted Israeli-Palestinian relations since Hamas won parliamentary elections in January.
The international community, led by the "Quartet" -- the US, the EU, the UN and Russia), has put three conditions to the Hamas government if it wishes to achieve international legitimacy and continue to be supported financially. Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist, stop all terrorist activities, and commit itself to carry out all previous international agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. These look like reasonable conditions to an outside observer. To Hamas, however, they appear to undermine its very reason for being.
After all, this is an organization committed to the destruction of Israel -- its charter calls for a holy war against all Jews -- and the establishment of an Islamic state in all of historical Palestine. Hamas views the Jews -- together with the Freemasons and other nefarious organizations like Rotary International and the Lions Club -- as responsible for the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, World War I and World War II. So it is no great surprise that Hamas rejected the Quartet's conditions.
At the same time, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), who represents Fatah, which lost the January elections, has tried in vain to find common ground with Hamas through an ambiguous text known as "The Prisoners' Document." This document was intended to serve as an implicit acceptance of Israel's right to exist. But nothing of the sort appears in the truncated text approved by Hamas. On the contrary, the text legitimizes continuing attacks against Israeli civilians in the West Bank, making it unacceptable to Israel and the international community.
But the current crisis cannot be solved by words alone. One of the paradoxical results of the US' almost messianic belief in elections as a panacea for all the ills of the Middle East is that Hamas -- the winner of democratic elections -- has gained a degree of legitimacy that it never had before. On the other hand, Hamas's history and current behavior clearly indicate that it regards elections as merely a political tool, and that it is devoid of any commitment to the norms and values underlying democracy.
Fascist and communist regimes of the past, which followed a similar instrumentalist approach to democracy, come to mind here. Yet, at the same time, the US supports Abu Mazen, trying to undermine the Hamas government, thus casting a shadow on the credibility of its own commitment to democracy.
The current violence may escalate further, and could bring down the Hamas government. On the other hand, diplomatic means may bring about the release of the Israeli soldier and put a stop to the firing of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel -- a daily occurrence that has challenged the credibility of the new Israeli government under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
But the fundamental problem is that, until now, at every historical juncture, the Palestinians refused to accept a compromise and consequently failed in nation-building. In 1947, they refused the UN partition plan, which called for the establishments of two states in British Palestine. In 1993, after the Oslo agreements, the Palestinian Authority established under the late Yasser Arafat became another militarized authoritarian regime, very much like Syria and Egypt, and did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian refugees. It was this failure that brought Hamas to power.
The current crisis is obviously the first test for Olmert and his plans for further withdrawal from Israeli-occupied territories. But it is an even greater test for the Palestinians: will they once again be led by a radical and fanatical leadership into another national catastrophe? Or will they finally realize that a future of independence, sovereignty and dignity is open to them -- but only if they grant the Israelis what they rightly claim for themselves?
The international community can urge the Palestinians toward a decision. But that decision, remains in the hands of the Palestinians alone.
Shlomo Avineri, a former director general of the Israeli foreign ministry, is a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence