The break-up of the Palestinian nation is not something Arab powers should tolerate. Action is needed, writes Ahmed Abdel-Halim* Mahmoud Abbas, in his capacity as president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), decided to dissolve the Palestinian government, declare a state of emergency, and form an emergency replacement. This decision was the result of the outbreak of fierce fighting between the Fatah movement and Hamas in the Gaza Strip that led to numerous deaths and injuries on both sides. In the end, the Hamas movement was able to take control of the Strip after seizing important sites belonging to the security agencies and the PA. These developments brought Palestinian institutions to a standstill and even prevented Arab parties, including the Arab League, from intervening to halt the fighting and resolve present disputes between the two conflicting parties. Egypt withdrew both its high-level security delegation and members of its diplomatic delegation from the Gaza Strip due to the seurity collapse. And yet Egypt stressed that it would continue its efforts of working with Palestinian factions to reach an agreement on a workable plan to turn Palestinian national aspirations into reality, on condition that fighting between Palestinian factions stops. What conflicting Palestinian parties in Gaza don't realise is that they are making Israel's dream come true by igniting the fire of strife and kindling war between the Palestinian factions. These factions are supposed to be cooperating with each other to reach Palestinian goals and turn their hopes of establishing the state of Palestine, on the land of Palestine, into a reality. These parties also don't realise what an Israeli official has stated -- that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and American President George Bush will discuss in Washington a series of measures that may be swiftly taken in order to respond to developments taking place in the Palestinian territories. The final result of this meaningless struggle would then be the silencing of the Palestinian voice and handing over the initiative to Israel and the United States to carry out whatever measures they see fit, measures that surely will not serve Palestinian interests. What we are currently witnessing is the tip of the iceberg regarding the foundations of the conflict between the Fatah movement and Hamas. These two movements differ fundamentally in their strategic foundations with regard to resolving the Palestinian issue. While Fatah has built the foundations of its strategy on the outcomes of agreements between the PA and Israel, and thus acknowledges the existence of the state of Israel in the region as a concrete fact, Hamas continues to build the foundations of its strategy upon the necessity of liberating all Palestinian territory, and does not recognise the existence of the state of Israel. This difference between the strategic thought of the two movements remained concealed when Fatah held political control. It began to surface following the legislative elections held in the Palestinian territories that resulted in Hamas winning the majority of votes. Hamas formed a government led by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who recently rejected the president's decision to charge Salam Fayad, the minister of finance, with forming an emergency government. He also rejected the decision to dissolve the government, affirming that it would continue its work as usual. Israel set the stage for internal Palestinian struggle when it announced that it completely refused to deal with Haniyeh's government. Despite the Palestinian declaration that foreign relations would be the responsibility of Abbas while Haniyeh's government would essentially focus on domestic affairs, Israel, with the United States behind it, fanned the flames between the Palestinian factions. And although Arab countries, particularly Egypt, stressed that Israel had ill intentions and was seeking conflict, the Palestinian factions continued to fight. But this is not the end of the story. Analysis of the current political and strategic situation suggests that Olmert's imminent meeting with Bush may allow both to meet a precious goal. Israel and the United States aspire to separate the West Bank from the Gaza Strip and establish two Palestinian realities -- one for Fatah in the West Bank, and one for Hamas in Gaza. This would preclude the existence of one government, one territory, one nation, and one Palestinian cause. And if this happened, it would produce a number of outcomes, the most significant of which would be the following: First, Israel would find it easy to impose the solutions it sees appropriate. It would actualise its dreams of enabling itself to, at a future stage, take control of all of historic Palestine. This would be an important step towards the establishment of Greater Israel. The US strategy for the Middle East would also be implemented. This strategy is essentially based on the redrawing of the region's map via the US's notion of constructive chaos. In the end, this would result in full security for Israel at the expense of all other Arab parties. Within such a framework, it would be possible to establish a Greater Israel in the Middle East that would serve American interests and cooperate with the United States so that it could continue its present role as a sole superpower, just as it would serve Israel's interests in the Middle East. Third, what is currently taking place in the Palestinian territories would be related to that taking place in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. A characteristic of the new global and American developments is the tying together of the region's problems. Controlling the current Israeli-Palestinian clash would imply the possibility of solving similar situations in the rest of the region. In conclusion, internal Palestinian fighting not only harms Palestinian interests, but also Arab interests. It paves the ground for a new Middle East shaped as the US envisions it, which President Bush has announced several times, as well as how Israel wants it. To a large degree this requires Arab decisiveness that takes into account the fact that separating the West Bank from the Gaza Strip partly aims to put an end to the Arab peace initiative, prevent the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and increase the internal fragmentation of other Arab states. Moreover, this is taking place at a time when the Middle East is agitated by a number of areas of conflict, and at a time that the domestic situation of some Arab countries is woefully fragile. Conflict between Palestinian factions forms a grave danger. Palestinian partition cannot be accepted. It equals the establishment of the state of Israel itself in terms of danger, and might even surpass it in the view of some. The current Israeli expansion supported by America threatens other countries. The resolve of the Arabs not to accept the destruction of a unified PA and the dispersal of its sovereignty must be strong. We must also be frank with ourselves. Strife between the Palestinian factions stems not only from Israeli and American facilitation; other hands -- Arab and regional -- have played a role in the outbreak and continuation of these conflicts and splits. The first step towards calming this strife is for Arab and regional powers to be uninvolved in Palestinian internal affairs. The second step is to expose American and international interventions that have led, and will lead in the future, to increased internal Palestinian conflict. There remains an opportunity for a real and serious solution to the crisis. The beginning of the path is a return to forthrightness, exposure of the facts, and real efforts by all parties to reach an agreement to stop the fighting. Then the Palestinian household must be put back into order from within, and appropriate Arab supportgiven to help put matters into their right place. * The writer is a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
